Den stora tråden om global uppvärmning/växthuseffekten

Now Santer replied, in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, and in the response he explained that he had made changes, but those changes were in response to the peer review process. In other words, totally normal scientific practice...This account was corroborated by the Chairman of the IPCC and by all of the other authors of the chapters. In fact, over 40 scientists were co-authors of this chapter. This letter was signed by Santer and 40 others and published in the Wall Street Journal in June 1996. And Santer was also formally defended by the American Meteorological Society.

But neither Seitz nor Singer ever retracted the charges, which was then repeated — many times, over and over again — by industry groups and think-tanks. And in fact, if you google "Ben Santer", these same charges are still in the Internet today. In fact, one site said that it was proven in 1996 that Santer had fraudulently altered the IPCC report.

It would seem, after having read the report, the authors don't know and don't care how modeling is done in the physical sciences. They fail to ask, "Does it matter that some of our rules-of-thumb were broken?" (9.3, for example, doesn't always apply!)

They spin and spin and cast a lot of FUD; global cooling, for example, makes it into this report.

They get supersitious about nonlinearities; nonlinearities are necessary in climate modeling, and they don't always mean instability.

They make an accusation of overfitting without substantiating it one bit.

And they get superstitious about math altogether; yes, models are opinions, but are the opinions testable and well-founded.

This is an interesting work of sophistry, but the authors simply do not make a case--at least a case that would make the cut in the physical sciences--for not trusting the climate models which underpin the IPCC report.

Are the data used to test the model flawed? Is the model based on unsound physics? Is the algorithm used to integrate the model stable? None of these are addressed. We are not told that the climate models are wrong or not trustworthy. Instead, the authors fault climate scientists not following the rules-of-thumb they recommend to economic modelers so as to have foolproof methodologies. Saying someone wasn't supersitiously foolproof is not the same as saying someone was fooled!

Sixteen pages of FUD! There is a difference between a critique by scientists and a scientific critique, especially when the scientists are far afield and don't bother to learn what's going on. Back to the lab for me, now. - Bennett Kalafut

We also examined the 535 references in Chapter 9. Of these, 17 had titles that suggested the article might be concerned at least in part with forecasting methods. When we inspected the 17 articles, we found that none of them referred to the scientific literature on forecasting methods.
It is difficult to understand how scientific forecasting could be conducted without reference to the research literature on how to make forecasts. One would expect to see empirical justification for the forecasting methods that were used. We concluded that climate forecasts are informed by the modelers’ experience and by their models—but that they are unaided by the application of forecasting principles