And Wally did cop-out. He threw down the gauntlet and then copped-out. Believe it or not, I was actually disappointed.

Argument:

“Gavin says so, and Gavin is an expert, so he must be right.”

Appeal to Authority

“You have to prove Gavin wrong!”

Strawman (It is Gavin’s job to prove that his hypothesis is superior to the Null Hypothesis, it is not our job to prove that the Null Hypothesis is superior.)

“You haven’t done anything in the peer reviewed journals to refute Gavin!”

Appeal to Authority and Strawman simultaneously (Gavin and people who have the same beliefs as Gavin control the peer review process).

“Cop-out! Cop-out! Cop-out!”

Ad-hominem

“Gavin looked at the data and says that the agreement with the model output is pretty good!”

Appeal to Authority and Strawman simultaneously again

“Clearly you understand the science better than they do…”

Actually, clearly he DOES, but you are insinuating that he doesn’t when you say it, so this is Ad-Hominem again.

“Well Wally, I have been credulous this entire time that you are who and what you say you are…but this blog does have a history of people attempting to pass themselves off as academics, scientists, researchers and the like. If you’ve fooled me thus far, you’re the best yet…”

Attempting to mis-direct by calling into question the qualifications of the person you disagree with (the negative version of Appeal to Authority).

Anyone care for more examples? This is fun!

With the complete lack of understanding of the scientific method shown in Waldo’s posts, one might almost think he is Gavin posting under an assumed name!

Models are not (and NEVER WILL BE) any kind of scientific reality. At BEST, they are a mathematical approximation of reality. They are only a GOOD approximation of reality if the modeler fully understands all of the variables participating in the system being modeled, and (even more importantly) HOW THOSE VARIABLES ALL INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER UNDER CONSTANTLY VARYING CONDITIONS!

In “climate science” they don’t even know what all the variables are, and they CERTAINLY do not have a good idea of how all of the variables interact with each other under constantly varying conditions.

They also have base-level input data that has been screwed around with so much that it is no longer even possible to consider it to be valid raw data to be input into a model in the first place.

It is POSSIBLE for the following to happen:

input output
Bad Data ——-> Bad Model ——-> Reasonable Result

However, the only way that can happen is by sheer accident. Sheer accident does not equal “good science”.

Also, appeals to authority (saying that Gavin and Hansen are experts when they are merely “self-proclaimed” experts) and ad-hominem attacks to divert the argument are both prime examples of faulty logic.

So with our buddy Waldo here, we have someone who doesn’t know much about science to begin with, clearly has NO understanding of the scientific method, and clearly does not understand the difference between logic and faulty logic.

And yet he seems to find his own arguments somehow convincing, which also makes him delusional. Quite an interesting study. I hope he comes around again!

And drum roll – the study conclusion conclusion said:

“Based on existing data, the SalmonPVA, and our current understanding of how acidification effects salmon survival, acidification does not appear to be having a significant population effect on the DPS rivers. Until new information becomes available, it would be premature to assume that river liming on a large scale would contribute significantly to the recovery of the DPS.”

The earlier Maine Atlantic salmon recovery study for Maine used a similar variation claiming they had already written the conclusions before the liming work was finished so it wasn’t included in the recommendations.

These researchers kept forgetting the right answer was dam removal.

Do what ever you like.

And I don’t have to prove Gavin wrong, I just have to demonstrate how his analysis is lacking and not supportive of his conclusion. Two VERY different things. Though I don’t think you fully understand that, and possibly never will.

Would you mind if I sent your critiques above to them? Again, it’s very possible they may not respond, but again they might…

I have made no bones about being an amateur layperson non-scientist. Are you who and what you claim to be, Wally?

“Really? Prove it. Peer-review, Wally.”

Haha, Waldo, I did. One doesn’t require peer review to prove something. Plus, it quite comicial that you want me to disprove someone’s half-brained blog post in a peer reviewed journal.

I think we’re done here.

“And am I to understand that the June 15, 3:42 post with generalities such as “they don’t match reality going forward” / “errors from model predictions will only get larger over time” is your response to the paper you demanded I provide?”

Yes, at least in part there. Model predictions from models that have not be varified are not sufficient proof of CAGW. You can make a model do anything. Literially waldo. Even if you fit the parameters to previous data. So the model predictions going forward are at best a mental exercise, but without validation model predictions are worthless.

Really? Prove it. Peer-review, Wally. You may be convinced, your tribal members may be convinced, but overall it’s pretty weak to make the charge here and nowhere else.

How about this: tell Gavin and James Hansen that they’re doing bad science. Hansen has an email: James.E.Hansen@nasa.gov. Gavin Schmidt is at: gschmidt-at-giss.nasa.gov.

Clearly you understand the science better then they do – and since “dealing with the science” is an issue for you on a cultural commentary blog, deal with it. They may not respond, but explain to them what they’re doing wrong and maybe you can help them correct it. Go ahead. Maybe they’ll even respond and you can post it here. (I fully expect you to rationalize why you won’t do this, by the way.)

And am I to understand that the June 15, 3:42 post with generalities such as “they don’t match reality going forward” / “errors from model predictions will only get larger over time” is your response to the paper you demanded I provide?

Well Wally, I have been credulous this entire time that you are who and what you say you are…but this blog does have a history of people attempting to pass themselves off as academics, scientists, researchers and the like. If you’ve fooled me thus far, you’re the best yet…