Examinator “I agree with some of your premises but not your methodology, conclusion or the overtones of delivery”

I did not realize I had presented “my” methodology here.

My only conclusion is GIGO. Which tends to make any other conclusion redundant.

As for ‘overtone of delivery’ – not interested in your subjective sensitivities.

But on that point, I don’t much care for your either, although had you not mentioned it, I would not have bothered to say.

Billie “Col_Rouge I doubt you have ever worked with a computer model that's any more complex than a mortgage brokers financial plan for low-doc customers, or may be you are the architect of the superannuation funds data base.”

Keep guessing billie.

“There is a world of difference between financial modelling and the climate modelling.”

You obviously know more than I would ever give you credit for ….

However, regardless of the object of the model, financial, operational, network planning, queue theory and traffic flows or ‘climate’, all models are subject to the same observational constraints…

To use the words of examinator

Garbage in, garbage out.

. . . much like your posts, billie.

Kieran

Perhaps I’m naïve as you say. I know that Scientists are human with all that it implies. Philosophy aside.

All good scientific paper include some element of doubt e.g. confidence percentages less than 100.
Therefore determinations have the same/lesser confidence. Absolute conclusions are at best assumptive.

Logically all these scientifically agreed adverse related events (multiple disciplines) must contribute to some cumulative consequence. As it stands in the absence of a scientific alternative Global Climate Change (not Global Warming) is a working hypothesis that tries to identify this cumulative consequence.

My point has always been that ‘games’ get in the way of meaningful reasoning.
Practically speaking we have two issues to consider:
• What do these events mean and what will be the cumulative effect? ( a drop of water won’t kill you, but you can drown in 4cm )
• What do we do to protect ourselves from these consequences what ever they are?

Do we believe in self proclaimed experts (business, journalists and other “nay Sayers”) all with no or limited expertise in the various disciplines they’re commenting on? Therefore both their OBJECTIVITY if not Skill must subtract from the confidence level of their conclusions.

Given the Scientifically agreed Possible /Probable consequences of any one of these events let alone the cumulative effect. We need to plan harm minimumization strategies at the very least. To do that intelligently we need an over arching idea of what we’re preparing against.

Therefore it’s reasonable to ask “what are the alternative hypotheses?
• Natural events? Who cares if its natural or anthropogenic, catastrophes have the same effect regardless of their origin.
• “She’ll be right, mate”? Strewth that approach ignores a cornucopia of “bell weather” events that increase daily.
• Panic? Hell No!
If there are better explanations what are they?

NB. My posts are usually multilayered unlike the usual myopic one off comment. Likewise their context often lies in a cumulation of a commenters related posts rather than one single exchange.

Col Rouge. Neither you or I has a monopoly an right or wrong difference is I admit it. end

Virtually all scientific and economic research depends on application of statistical method. Ian Castles has been a global leader in this field for decades, highly respected by his peers and formerly head of their leading international body. His work, and that of the ABS under his guidance, has been a major input to development of international statistical standards, e.g. in national accounting and use of parity purchasing pricing for international comparisons, work which was ignored by the IPCC in the economic modelling which underpins all of their climate projections. I can think of no one better suited to commenting on statistical aspects of the AGW debate. No one in CSIRO or BoM will have remotely comparable credentials in statistics.

I am not an economic modeller, but as an economist was involved in, directed and analysed such modelling at various times from 1966-2002, and have taken relevant courses at LSE, University of Essex and ANU.

Kieran, you say that "behaviour is the CONTROL of perceptions." Nothing could be further from the truth. Our behaviour is driven by our so-called sub-conscious mind, which evaluates and reacts to everything which impacts on our sense doors (eyes, ears etc) and develops deep-seated cravings and aversions; these result in entrenched habit patterns which largely determine our response to stimuli. That is, our reactions to the inputs we perceive control our behaviour.

And, yes, I do have some expertise in this field as well as in economics etc (see my previous post), expertise based in part on deep self-observation since 1972 as well as external wisdom.

I'm not with you Sams. You 'fully agree' that 'A principle of all scientific work is that it should be open to scrutiny, assessment and possible validation by fellow scientists', but then say you don't have time to read amateurish crank blogs such as Climate Audit. But the fact is that if it hadn't been for the blogs the DECR couldn't have been scrutinised, assessed or possibly validated BY ANYONE. Steve McIntyre posted 'Some Quick Thoughts on CSIRO Drought Info' in Canada, and scholars around the world can take it from there. Why couldn't CSIRO and BoM have provided that information?

The authors of the DECR are doubtless able scientists, but the DECR episode shows yet again that under present arrangements it's the Australian Government that decides whether and when the non peer-reviewed findings of publicly-funded scientific research bodies are published. You say that the DECR 'draws on' previous peer-reviewed work but it's the Australian Government, not me, that's touted this Report as 'the first of its kind in Australia' and literally tries to blind the community with science.

Thanks Faustino for your comments. It's the ABS and the legislation under which it operates, not the successive Heads of the Bureau, that deserve the credit. Unlike CSIRO and the BoM, the ABS hasn't and won't yield to government the right to decide what will or won't be published. The legislation obliges the Statistician to 'publish and disseminate the results of any such ... analysis' and those results are published irrespective of the wishes of the government of the day, subject only to statistical considerations. Does anyone believe that the results of the DECR would have seen the public light of day if standard validation tests had shown that they lacked statistical significance? CSIRO and the BoM would have been told to try again.

The DECR's results can now be tested, not just by David Stockwell and Steve McIntyre but also the authors of the Report and any others who care to take a hand. Let a thousand flowers bloom

IanC,
Good Post.

On a more global perspective on GCC. I am torn between the reductionist approach and that of the greater than the sum of the parts.
I wonder how relevant is public validation given that their expertise(s) aren't in relevant disciplines?
It seems to me that making definitive decisions on one 'scientific' conclusion (of less than 100% confidence) is some what presumptuous if not bad logic.

Is it more prudent to take the legal precept “preponderance of the evidence”?

Total reliance solely on meteorological models given that many relationships are not fully understood must have a limited confidence factor. (rather it is PART the preponderance). To me this is the end model once we have determined the probable contributing factors and their ultimate effects on the factors that influence weather. There is ample evidence that we are facing multiple failures of natural systems. It seems self evident that that lots of bad things don’t equal good outcomes. (i.e. bad cumulative effects)

I guess what I see is that squabbles over labelling or minutiae are both myopic and pointless. Therefore surely our scientific approach should be to define what the problem is and probable outcomes, so we can institute at least harm minimization using multiple models from multiple sources then addressing the one that fits the observable evidence best. This is opposed to concentrating on proving one side or the other is wrong?
Surely this is the purpose of management (government) and their expertise.