Source: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/03/18/reoger-pielke-sr-status-report-climate-science/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:52:13+00:00

Document:
Posted with his generous permission.
. Freeman Dyson described this hole as “tool- or instrument-driven revolutions.” These are as or more common than paradigm-driven revolutions. Galileo looks through his telescope at the moons of Jupiter and our view of the universe changes. Watson and Crick looked at an X-ray diffraction image of DNA and saw its structure; four years later Watson formulated the “central dogma of molecular biology” and began a revolution still in its early stage.
My guess (guess) is that new observational tools, not just new theories, will end the climate wars. If not, then eventually the changing climate will tell us which side was correct.
Roger Pielke Sr. is currently a Senior Research Scientist in Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science. He is also an Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, and now serves there as a Senior Research Associate.
Roger Pielke Sr.’s testimony to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee on 29 May 2014.
“Climate Threats: A More Inclusive Assessment Is Needed“. A look at peer-reviewed papers of hindcast multi-year climate model prediction skill (2015).
These provide an introduction to climate models, an important frontier in climate science.
“A Model World” by Jon Turney in Aeon, December 2013.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information see The keys to understanding climate change and My posts about climate change. Also, see these posts about computer models, especially these..
Important: climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
Put the stories about record 2016 warming in a useful context.
A look at the future of global warming. Our political response depends on its trend.
Surprising news about trend of America’s temperature and precipitation.
§1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences, and conclusions.
§2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.
§3 A scientific inference is logically valid.
§4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by application of axioms, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.
§5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.
§6 A scientific concept is well-defined and has a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.
§7 A scientific concept can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurement results. Whenever predictions differ from measurement results, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement results and the claimed capability of the concept, there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.
§8 A scientific concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.
§9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.
§10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.
§11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.
Countless disputes in science were settled long before any of those “principles” were formulated. They’re abstract rules, almost irrelevant to the actual social processes of scientists and their institutions.
The problem is that these principles have not been clearly expressed by any on the scientific institutions that you might expect would formulate such principles.
What can be found in abundance, however, are codes of conduct like Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, EPA’s Principles of Scientific Integrity, Max Planck Society – Rules of good scientific practice or The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. But none of these provides a well-defined set of basic principles for science.
The social processes within IPCC are not governed by proper principles like the ones I listed above.
The processes of science are almost never governed by the dreamed-up-by-academics principles you list. I suggest reading Karl Popper or Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, or some of the more recent literature.
The IPCC’s job is to act as a mirror for the work of mainstream climate scientists. Not to make climate science, or decide anything. It doesn’t do so, and scientists don’t expect it to do so.
The principles I list, are principles that scientific statements should comply with.
A proper scientific work will comply with the principles I list.
I am familiar with the ideas of Popper and to some extent the ideas of Kuhn.
We got proper observations, like RSS and UAH satellite temperature series and ARGO ocean temperature series.
These series already tells us that the climate models that IPCC relies on are wrong.
My first point is that poor principles is a problem. My second point is that proper principles have not been formulated by the scientific organisations and are nowhere to found.
SInce you are not the Pope of Science, what matters is the opinion of climate scientists. Most disagree with you. As with most questions in science, time will tell.
As for your principles, you can believe what you want. Not being the Pope of Science, what counts are the methods used by scientists to decide issues.
Methods and principles have great influence on the conclusion that are drawn by scientific bodies.
Within climate science, we happen to have one significant supranational body called United Nations. And United Nations established one significant supranational body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The closest you will get a Pope within science is United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And that Pope got sub-standard principles.
Like the principles 1,10,and11 that I referred to in: Principles governing IPCC work – linked a the comment above.
That document endorse the use of subjective level of confidence within climate science.
As it stands now our, our Pope within climate science is governed by sub-standard principles. That will influence on the statements of that papacy.
With regards to the priciples of scientific pursuit listed above, while these are good, they are not sufficient. They rely on formal systems, and any formal system will be incomplete (Godel’s incompleteness theorem).
I’ll take the other side of Taleb’s idea: it’s absurd, and doesn’t withstand the slightest scrutiny. Which is why it has received little or no support from others. I examined it in two posts.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb warns us about climate change.
Thank you. It took a major effort, with great scrutiny and support, to come up with the list of principles.
Why would you think of it that as a problem for application of the principles?

References: §1

§2

§3

§4

§5

§6

§7

§8

§9

§10

§11