While the book works great on Kindle, I am more than happy to provide it for free here.
The book defines the following principles that distinguish science from fiction:
§P1 The clarity principle
§P2 The traceability principle
§P3 The logical validity principle
§P4 The deduction principle
§P5 The logical construction principle
§P6 The definition principle
§P7 The validation principle
§P8 The context principle
§P9 The data availability principle
§P10 The measurement reporting principle
§P11 The prediction reporting principle
For a normal distribution, there is an exact mathematical relationship between uncertainty at a stated confidence level and risk that can simply be quantified as:
Risk = Uncertainty @ 95% confidence level * 0.2
A set of paths to the 1.5 DegC target of the Paris Agreement (2015) are presented in the article by Glen Peters.
However, there is a fundamental problem with the paths: They are not based on the premises that formed the basis for the Paris Agreement.
I´m proud to announce that my main work is now available on Kindle. Kindle has nice features for reading, navigation, bookmarking, highlighting, etc. It looks great.
What on earth is happening within science these days?
Here is an article on publication bias that was published in the journal Climatic Change having the title:
“No evidence of publication bias in climate change science”
However, the main body of the article identifies biasing practices.
An article in Global Ecology and Biogeography demonstrates how flawed citation practices facilitated an unsubstantiated perception on the state of the ocean.
This post gives an overview over what I regard to be the most fundamental scientific flaws with the governance of IPCC – United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.
This is an easy, traceable, step by step calculation of the current global energy imbalance based on reported ocean warming.
I have been missing a neat summary of Karl Popper´s scientific method. I have also been thinking, that a neat set of theorems representing his method would be useful. Both as a guide for development and scrutiny of ideas, but also to be able to reveal weaknesses in any idea claimed to represent the truth. This is my summary of Popper´s method into a neat set of theorems.
“A steady diet of fresh scientific perspectives helps to maintain regular doses of funding, helped in turn by an endless round of conferences”
I was a bit puzzled, once I had discovered that:
IPCC was misled by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) on “Qualitative expression of confidence”!
Both IPCC and it´s reviewer, InterAcademy Council, messed up on “Quantified measures of uncertainty”!
How on earth could a scientific organization mess up on these things?
Make place in history for honorable judge Andrew Scott Hanen.
The man who had the cojones to rule that United States Attorney general Loretta Lynch will have to take steps to ensure that the Office of Professional Responsibility effectively polices the conduct of the Justice Department lawyers and appropriately disciplines those whose actions fall below the standards that the American people rightfully expect from their Department of Justice.
Can a scientific statement be justified by the fact that IPCC is utterly convinced of its truth? The answer is, ‘No’; and any other answer would be incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity.
IPCC´s “Guidance note on expression of uncertainty” is affecting all the works by IPCC.
InterAcademy Council gave bad advices – and IPCC made bad choices.
To be able to judge if uncertainty has been properly expressed and reported it is important to be familiar with relevant standards for expression of uncertainty.
The title sounds peculiar, doesn´t it?
However, if the range is wide – it is safe to be certain that the outcome will be within that range!
The way IPCC highlights radiative forcing, but fail to mention that the net energy absorption is about the same size as the cloud feedback is remarkable.
Have you ever wondered how strong the hypothesized cloud feedback is, compared to the net surface warming?
Hang on – in about 2 minutes you will know.
As the cloud feedback is equal to the current global energy accumulations, it follows that the sum of all other terms in the radiation budget must be zero. Hence, IPPC seem to be wrong, either about their central estimate for cloud feedback or about the rest of their radiation budget.
IPCC covers a wide range of possible warming of the oceans from 0 – 2000 m, but don´t provide a best estimate.
IPCC can´t possibly miss!
This post contains relevant figures, references to the IPCC report, step by step calculations and link to a spread sheet with easy to follow calculations of:
– The deduced amount of warming
– The observed amount of warming
The title sounds pretty impressive – doesn´t it?
Well – let us translate it into plain english and see what the title really says:
Model errors can be removed by adjusting the model so that the output match what is observed.
By inductive reasoning, and imagination, many possible explanations can be provided for a series of events. However, most of these explanations will be wrong.
Knowledge on the other hand is characterized by the ability to repeatedly predict a particular range of outcome for a particular set of conditions.
This post summarize the most important unscientific principles governing IPCC. The post contains links to other the other posts which provides my full argument behind each claim.
IPCC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variability. IPCC relied on climate models (CMIP5), the hypotheses under test if you will, to exclude natural variability!
Enjoy this 1 minute clip with Feynman!
What Richard Feynman summarize here is the hypotetico – deductive model. This method can be regarded as the modern scientific method.
By the United Nations climate theory, energy is supposed to:
– be trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere
but fails to warm it!
– pass the upper 300 meter of the oceans
without warming it!
– warm the deep oceans below 700 meters
where we lack historical data, and the measurement uncertainty is too high to conclude!
These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred.
The world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it…”
A culture is a way of perceiving, thinking and acting – which has been learned, developed or discovered by an organization – while learning to deal with its internal and external challenges – and which is being taught to it´s members as the right way of perceiving, thinking and acting
“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”
– Karl Popper
Anyone thinking that IPCC can be regarded as being unbiased should have a look at the Report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 28 June 1989.
Simply put, the result of an estimate should be reported by:
– giving a full description of how the measurand Y is defined
– stating the result of the measurement as Y = y ± U and give the units of y and U
– giving the approximate level of confidence associated with the interval y ± U and state how it was determined;
“The degree of certainty in key findings is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence. (from very low to very high)
Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement.”
– IPCC WGI;AR5