THE scientific sceptic* is defined by rational inquiry and is prepared to consider the possibility, probability or certainty of different propositions. Furthermore, the scientific sceptic investigates with a disposition to be persuaded.
The following example, from physicist Peter Ridd, considers the ability to predict (the probability that a prediction will be correct) as a guide to whether we should be sceptical of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a theory – or not:
“THE big difference between our understanding of gravity and the atmosphere is that we can use gravity to produce brilliant predictions of the future, i.e. positions of projectiles, satellites, planets, tides etc. We can predict the position of Jupiter or the earth with remarkable accuracy 50 years (or 5000 years) into the future.
“Obviously the same cannot be said of the weather, or the climate, partly because of its intrinsic non-linear nature and partly because so many of the processes are not understood. Newtonian gravity also has only one unconstrained parameter, G, and we know that to 5 or 6 significant figures. Of the effectively hundreds of unconstrained parameters in Greenhouse theory, many would not even be known to the second significant figure.”
There is nothing in this comment from Professor Ridd suggesting AGW theory has been proven wrong, but rather, perhaps, that there is reason to be sceptical of the theory?
************
Notes and Links
*The word ‘scientific’ has been added to the title for this series so we can focus on ‘rational inquiry’ as opposed to philosophical scepticism which Raymond Harvey explained in part 5 is something all together different.
Part 6 is a long comment by Raymond Harvey in the thread following part 5 of this series: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/defining-the-sceptics-part-5/ [And the thread is well worth reading.]
Parts 1-4 of this series can be found here http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/philosophy/
Read more about Peter Ridd, picture above, here: http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/mathphys/staff/physics/Ridd.shtml
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“THE big difference between our understanding of gravity and the atmosphere is that we can use gravity to produce brilliant predictions of the future, i.e. positions of projectiles, satellites, planets, tides etc. We can predict the position of Jupiter or the earth with remarkable accuracy 50 years (or 5000 years) into the future.
“Obviously the same cannot be said of the weather, or the climate, partly because of its intrinsic non-linear nature and partly because so many of the processes are not understood.#
i hereby predict:
the average global temperature of 2059 will be 15°C +-1.5°C
average temperature of the July 2059 here will be much higher than temperature of January 2059.
temperature in Bamako (Mali), will be much hotter in 25th week of 2059, than in Novosibirsk (Siberia).
in short, that example by Peter Ridd is utter nonsense!
Sod,
Your prediction that the average global temperature of 2059 will be 15°C +-1.5°C. is reassuring. It affirms the sceptics contention that the actual AGW effect will be negligible and the threat has been greatly exaggerated. Coming out of the closet like that was a brave thing to do. Congratulations.
sod was IN a closet?
sod,
Certainly you are being deliberately pointless in your misleading example of predictive powers of climate vs. gravity?
I agree with Peter Ridd. In the theoretical sciences–as opposed to the largely descriptive sciences–successful prediction is the coin of the realm. If one’s precious little hypothesis, in which one has so much ego invested, has zero predictive power (and zero postdictive power), as is the case with Climate Alarmism, then it’s not worth a toot, and doesn’t deserve to be called a scientific theory.
“Ancient astrology” would be more to the point. That’s the expression used by one of the researchers who contributed to a report by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources. Here’s a link to that article.
http://tinyurl.com/dfow26
Caveat: The writing quality is not great; parts of the article were excerpted from the original report, and did not translate very well into English.
Thank you very much, Professor Ridd, that is very reassuring.
Because
– I cannot predict my age at death to even the first digit
– actuarial tables predict it with a large statistical uncertainty
– no-one really knows until it happens,
I can conclude that there is a non-zero (10^-34 is non-zero) probability that I am immortal. I’m therefore going to stop salary-sacrificing into superannuation and I’m gonna have me some FUN 🙂
Sod,
Your prediction that the average global temperature of 2059 will be 15°C +-1.5°C. is reassuring. It affirms the sceptics contention that the actual AGW effect will be negligible and the threat has been greatly exaggerated. Coming out of the closet like that was a brave thing to do. Congratulations.
why don t you tell me, what you think, what proponents of AGW assume to happen till 2059?
what do you think is the effect of a global +2°C change?
you seem to know absolutely nothing. please educate yourself!
sod,
Certainly you are being deliberately pointless in your misleading example of predictive powers of climate vs. gravity?
i demonstrated that i can do pretty accurate projections on climate, 50 years in advance. the example given by Ridd is plainly stupid.
I guess Peter Ridd has never heard of the three body problem… Newtonian dynamics is chaotic oh noes!
Sod, can you explain what precisely in the quote from Ridd you think is wrong?
As far as I’m aware, he says nothing controversial:
– G is known to half a dozen decimal places and is the only parameter in Newtonian gravitational mechanics;
– climate does involve many processes that are either poorly understood (e.g., clouds) or are hard to measure (e.g., mean sea surface temperature) or both;
– [interpreting his statement on predictive power] the errors that accumulate in an iterated, discrete, linear approximation (e.g., a GCM) to a large non-linear set of equations (such as define the climate) are going to be large compared to the errors in a simulation of a simpler, better understood, system (such as the motion of planets and satellites).
What I find curious about your prediction is the huge wiggle room you’ve allowed yourself: even if it cools substantially (15 – 1.5 = 13.5) by 2059 you will still be able to claim your “theory” is accurate. The theory of gravitation has survived much more rigorous experimental tests than that.
SOD “Why don t you tell me, what you think, what proponents of AGW assume to happen till 2059?”
Easy – we don’t know but from implementing your policies, which will cause general impoverishment, adaption to any unforseen climate change will be difficult, if not impossible. Not for you of the ruling classes who will be overseeing our CO2 footprint compliance while living off the hog.
It seems the reaction to a truth-seeking skeptic is the same in other fields of “knowledge” besides climatology. Perhaps you should write Ms. Sommers and ask for her take on what makes a skeptic.
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i40/40sommers.htm
JT, I read that article – good point you make but scepticism seems to be related to right-brain vs left-brain types. I asked John Ray about this but he said there was no data on this in the field of pyschology.
We had a climate debate in Perth last night between Professor Ian Plimer and the warmists – one scientist from ANU sent an email and congratulated the Aust. Inst. Geoscientists on the event, and expressed surprise there was so much objection to a theory thought to have been settled. AGW theory may well be settled in academe, but not in the hurly burly of the real world and economic reality.
Other emails and phone messages could be summarised as ” we have started to think about this whole issue”.
This was Plimer’s purpose – to start a debate over AGW, the ETS. In this he has succeeded.
One conspicuous fact was the avoidance of any discussion about the science underpinning AGW belief by the AGW side of the debate, and this is extremely pertinent, for it confirms, again, the comment made by a former Canadian Minister of the Environment in the a previous liberal government that “so what if the science is wrong, that’s not the agenda”, paraphrasing her, of course.
No lunatic conspiracy theories here, no siree. It’s all rational, evidence based scepticism.
Not to start a food fight, BUT, the two probes we have leaving the Solar System are going in different directions and experienceing the same anomaly.
They have both been decellerating in a fairly linear fashion. This does not bode well for Newtonian Gravity and its parameter if some unknown explanation is not found.
For those half asleep, their decelleration rate should be slowing as they get further from the Sun and other large planets that could have a noticeable affect.
Kuhnkat,
The deceleration is easily explained by the Plasma Model – it is the solar electric field which is slowing them down. Wait until they pass through the heliosphere – more surprises will be in store for the astronomers.
SJT,
I am pleased you agree – no lunatic conspiracy theories here. So I presume then, that George Bernard Shaw’s description of the Fabian agenda is all a lie?
Alan “I cannot predict my age at death to even the first digit…”
That’s mainly because you have no age. Your death will not be dependent on time, but on biological forces. Aging and disease have nothing to do with a clock and are dependent on the interaction of chemicals in the body.
However, your thought processes may have a lot to do with your time of death. I was reading a book recently on the West African troops that fought for the British Army in Burma during WW II. Many of them still believed in Ju Ju, a belief system that has a marked influence on an African’s death. There were reports in the book of people simply lying down in a trance-like state till they died, usually within a day or two. Some of the African wounded laid down and died even though their wounds were not that serious.
We humans have built a system of time into our minds. I’m not convinced that we don’t set a time of death, possibly based on the average known time of death for humans, or the time of death of our parents, and work toward it. We look forward to retirement so we can sit on our butts and slowly fade away at the appropriate time.
There was a story recently of a 101 year old man in England, who smokes, drinks and runs half-marathons, albeit very slowly. He worked till he was 98 and retired. Finding himself getting bored, he went back to work.