The fact is that I was wrong!

Update 2016-01-26
There is an error in the calculations in this post as “increase in outgoing radiation inferred from changes in the global mean surface temperature.” Has not been taken into account. The conclusion is not valid.

Here is a new post without that error – it turns out that:

IPCC got all bets covered!

How to avoid being proven wrong!

“… 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

IPCC don´t even know how to quantify uncertainty!

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 IPCC report is a monument over inductivism!

“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

IPCC didn´t even define terminology related to disagreement!

The International Panel on Climate Change made some effort to define terminology. This is how the Panel defined terms to describe the degree of agreement: Box TS.1 | Treatment of Uncertainty “The following summary terms are used to describe.. the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high.” Everything should be just fine then – or…

All real scientists are sceptical!

Does your favourite scientific method happen to be one of these? (Ref Wikipedia – for what it is worth) Inductivism is the traditional model of scientific method attributed to Francis Bacon, who in 1620 vowed to subvert allegedly traditional thinking. In Baconian model, one observes nature, proposes a modest law to generalize an observed pattern, confirms it by many observations, ventures…

What does it take for an quantitative theoretical model to be reliable?

I think it would be useful to have an international standard to refer to when evaluating if an quantitative theoretical model is reliable. Unfortunately no such standard exists. If we regard the case where the theoretical model is about predicting the quantity of an output value for a number of inputs. There are some standards relating to measurement,…

About misconduct in science and questionable scientific practices.

An international standard would make it easier to discredit improper arguments within science. In lieu of such standard, other sources may be helpful . Below are some extracts from Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. This report by, the National Academy of Sciences, is freely available from National Academies Press. To scientists with…