See update below.
Times are tough for deniers. There is not much denier material to work with these days. Morano is recycling long debunked lies and Anthony is manufacturing new ones. After so many years and so many fibs they no longer know what it's like to tell the truth. Take this WUWT headline and opening lines for example:
A frank admission about the state of climate modeling by Dr. Gavin Schmidt
This is something I never expected to see in print. Climate modeler Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS comments on the failure of models to match real world observations.
Mathematical Models in Social Sciences and Erroneous Assumptions
What was this 'frank admission' about climate modelling? None. There was no discussion of climate modelling, at least not till later - and Anthony missed that bit (see below). It all started with a tweet by Nassim Taleb, who was tweeting about two of his online books about which he stated:
"Started a textbook-style document explaining ideas in technical style but linear form (updated progressively), mainly what people do not seem to get about The Black Swan and Antifragile. Letter in Nature explaining what Antifragile is NOT about and the central point that book reviewing fakes are missing"..
This is the tweet from Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness, in which he promoted his on-line books. (click the date to go to the tweet):
The failure of mathematicall models in the social"sciences" shd be and can be debunked mathematically. Math = no BS. fooledbyrandomness.com/FatTails.htmlGavin Schmidt responded that
— Nassim N. Taleb (@nntaleb) May 29, 2013
@nntaleb While errors in maths undoubtedly exist, the failure of models to match real world far more likely due to erroneous assumptions
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) June 1, 2013
Patience is not just a virtue...
If he hadn't jumped the gun, then Anthony could have chosen a tweet that was about climate models instead of one about mathematical models in the social sciences:@ustafford @nntaleb We should always challenge the validity of assumptions in any model. Model credibility built on successful predictions
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) June 1, 2013
More on erroneous assumptions
I'm thinking that Anthony got it wrong because he started with an erroneous assumption. Namely, that Gavin Schmidt never tweets about anything except climate science.
He also made another erroneous assumption (implicitly), that Dr Schmidt would "never" discuss the strengths and weaknesses of climate models. Based on these observations, if I were to construct a model of Anthony Watts' behaviour, do you think the following assumptions would be valid or erroneous?
- Anthony Watts doesn't read RealClimate.org
- Anthony Watts does read RealClimate.org but doesn't understand it.
- The limit of Anthony Watts ability to comprehend is less than 140 characters at a time.
- Anthony Watts wouldn't know a climate model from a bar of soap.
Update
Anthony has changed his headline, removing the word "climate". Which goes to prove what I wrote about his 'erroneous assumptions'. The old post title is still in the URL:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/01/a-frank-admission-about-the-state-of-climate-modeling-by-dr-gavin-schmidt/
Anthony's added bits and pieces at the bottom of his original article, trying to weasel his way out. Instead of just admitting he 'jumped the gun', he rants on along the lines of "I don't want to pay tax therefore I don't 'believe in' climate science".
My comment: climate models have made huge advances. They do have limitations. For example, the arctic sea ice is melting faster than earlier models projected. However, observed surface temperatures are within the range of the model projections. Anthony Watts denies and is a disinformation propagandist because of his greed and ideology. I base that assumption on the words that drip from his keyboard and his mouth - see 54 seconds in:
Interviewer: "What bothers you the most about the arguments that there is serious global warming?"
Watts: "They want to change policy, they want to apply taxes"!
I was just over at Watts [masochism] and saw that 'article'...Watt a pillock! Even removing the word 'climate' from the header leaves the impression that 'climate modeller' Schmidt is talking about climate models..
ReplyDeleteWhatever,Schmidt has always been frank about climate modelling. In fact,he's simply the best 'live' source of fundamental information about how they are made.
Fundamentally,no matter how Watts tries to frame his work as a critique of climate science,it always comes out as unintended revelations of his own paranoia,incompetence and bad faith.
Yes, Nick. I agree. Gavin Schmidt shows great patience in explaining the different types of models and their strengths and weaknesses.
DeleteWhile Anthony rapidly descends into "I don't believe climate science because I don't like taxes."
Anthony makes no effort to hide the ideological basis of his denial. He makes it as plain as the fact that he doesn't understand science and he can't do maths. A pitiful display of petulance and ignorance.
"... that Dr Schmidt would "never" discuss the strengths and weaknesses of climate models."
ReplyDeleteIf he has spent more than a half hour at RealClimate, then I can't classify his comment as anything but a blatant lie.
That's not intended as a pejorative, just as an easily demonstrable truth.