Is the NY Attorney General Prosecuting the Wrong Guys?

_{Barry Arrington

November 14, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Consider this chart:

95% of the models failed, including 100% of the models that predicted catastrophic runaway warming. If the NY AG is going to prosecute climate scientists for getting the science wrong, shouldn’t he be prosecuting the ones who actually, you know, got it wrong?

UPDATE:

alanbrad’s comment is so good it deserves to be highlighted:

Suppose 95% of weather men predict it will rain 5 inches tomorrow. 2% predict it will rain less than 5 inches, and 3% predict it will sprinkle for a little while. The 95% are saying that you should spend $1000 each on flood insurance. The 3% are saying its not necessary. The 95% are saying the 3% aren’t real scientists, and their research shouldn’t be funded. Meanwhile a company that sells solar panels funds some scientists to say that it won’t rain at all.

The next day, it sprinkles. Now, the DA wants to prosecute the company that sells solar panels.

In the end, isn’t it more damaging to the public to advocate buying expensive insurance you don’t need rather than prosecute a company for trying to sell solar panels?

Comments

GUN @ 15, If you were joking and I missed it, I apologize for saying you were stupid. The problem you have when making jokes here is a Poe's Law problem. The claims of global warming fundamentalists are so extreme, that is hard to tell when someone is joking about them or being serious.Barry Arrington_{November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

REC @ 13, Are you going to continue to say the chart is deceptive even though we both know that the overwhelming majority of the models predicted more warming than occurred, some wildly so? If you are going to stick your head in the sand, I suppose I can't stop you.Barry Arrington_{November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

I think you guys are getting the example wrong. Suppose 95% of weather men predict it will rain 5 inches tomorrow. 2% predict it will rain less than 5 inches, and 3% predict it will sprinkle for a little while. The 95% are saying that you should spend $1000 each on flood insurance. The 3% are saying its not necessary. The 95% are saying the 3% aren't real scientists, and their research shouldn't be funded. Meanwhile a company that sells solar panels funds some scientists to say that it won't rain at all. The next day, it sprinkles. Now, the DA wants to prosecute the company that sells solar panels. In the end, isn't it more damaging to the public to advocate buying expensive insurance you don't need rather than prosecute a company for trying to sell solar panels?alanbrad_{November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Barry,
You are assuming there were such models. Allow me enlighten you: NO ONE was predicting catastrophic cooling in the 90s. There are no such models available to be excluded.
Uh, what models? The other 5%? Yes, I assume they exist. By "the other way" I don't mean global cooling (is that the source of confusion?) 95% of the models predicted more warming than we've experienced - while the other 5% were wrong "the other way" - by predicting less warming than we've experienced. 95% of the models are not wrong - 100% are wrong. But you're only counting it as wrong if wrong one way but not the other. I guess I'll have to use an example: Suppose 100 weather forecasters all predict it will rain tomorrow. Tomorrow comes and it rains 0.76 inches. Someone then graphs all 100 predictions. 95 of the predictions had more rain than predicted. Some of them had 0.85 inches, while others had flooding with 2 or 3 inches. The other 5 predictions had less rain than what happened - such as 0.62 inches or 0.71 inches. Don't you think it would be odd to say that 95% of the forecasters predictions failed? One might wonder if it is hinting at some bias - perhaps the person saying it believed it wouldn't rain. (Of course, in the above I'm assuming, for sake of argument, that Roy's graph is accurate. That's a whole other issue.) It's not a big deal (if it was the only problem I noticed I wouldn't have even bothered replying). I just found the language a bit amusing. I thought you might even find the way you phrased it amusing yourself, especially as a lawyer (and they're supposed to be good at spotting such things). As the wink indicated in my first post, I thought it would actually be a light-hearted moment. Ah, well. Attempting such things often doesn't work out in such forums.goodusername_{November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

@12- I think he means warming less than modeled vs. greater than modeled. No claim of cooling in his reply (that I see). He is correct-all the models are wrong to some extent. I'd suggest a graph with the observed baseline corrected and the average of all the models plotted.REC_{November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

"Accepting the truth that the models were wrong" So you're going to continue to make this claim, despite that the evidence suggests that the chart you've displayed is wildly deceptive?REC_{November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

GUN @ 8:
Notice that you’re only counting a model as a failure if its prediction it too far one way but not the other way.
*palm forehead* You are assuming there were such models. Allow me enlighten you: NO ONE was predicting catastrophic cooling in the 90s. There are no such models available to be excluded. This is widely know. Do please try to get a grip on the Romper Room basics before you comment in an area. Good grief.Barry Arrington_{November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

So the AG isn't prosecuting people for being wrong, but for lying. Which definition of lying will he be using? "Misrepresentation of a material fact", or "saying something which we think should not be said"?EvilSnack_{November 15, 2015
November
11
Nov
15
15
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Prosecute everyone. Not having health insurance is a crime against humanity. Now all we need is a catchy name.Mung_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

goodname 8 "Elephant in the room? (Closes eyes) "I don't see any!"anthropic_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

“Apparently “failed” means predicting more warming than we see . . .” Uh, yes. A model that make an inaccurate prediction is a failed model. This is one of the more aggressively stupid things anyone has said around here in a while.
(sigh) I thought the above would be enough for you to catch the error but I guess more spelling out will be needed (I thought doing so would be insulting your intelligence). Notice that you’re only counting a model as a failure if its prediction it too far one way but not the other way. Apparently you're too biased to notice that. In other words: 100% of the models are wrong (it's statistically impossible for any model to be exactly correct - they're all going to be wrong in one direction or the other). What if only 50% of the models had too much warming, while the other half had too much cooling? Would it then be that 50% are wrong? :-)goodusername_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

goodusername "Apparently “failed” means predicting more warming than we see . . ." Uh, yes. A model that makes an inaccurate prediction is a failed model. This is one of the more aggressively stupid things anyone has said around here in a while.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Seversky, My God, can't you people take your blinders off even for an instant. Do you really think "lied about it" means anything other than "held a skeptical position on global warming." Wake up.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

REC, Oh, excuse me. I too remember all of those computer models from the 1990's that predicted the 18-year plateau. Not. Accepting the truth that the models were wrong, some of them wildly wrong, is the first step to recovery from global warming hysteria.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

If the NY AG is going to prosecute climate scientists for getting the science wrong, shouldn’t he be prosecuting the ones who actually, you know, got it wrong?
According to this NPR report The NY AG’s investigation is not into scientists who got the science wrong, it’s into companies who may have lied about it
New York’s attorney general would like to know: Did Exxon Mobil lie to you about the risks of climate change and to investors about how those risks might reduce profits? [...] The goal is to examine whether back in the 1970s, Exxon Mobil funded groups to undermine scientific studies involving climate change. Also, the attorney general is investigating whether the oil giant properly informed its investors of the profit risks that might arise as countries cut back on fossil fuels.
Should they be prosecuted for misleading people? Probably not, unless measurable harm was caused. It should still come under the heading of free speech. Should any policy of deliberately lying about the science be exposed? Absolutely.Seversky_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Yeesh this chart again? http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.htmlREC_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

95% of the models failed
Interesting definition of "failed". Apparently "failed" means predicting more warming than we see, but not less? ;-)
If the NY AG is going to prosecute climate scientists for getting the science wrong, shouldn’t he be prosecuting the ones who actually, you know, got it wrong?
Is this about the NY AG and Exxon Mobile? As I understand it, they are investigating a company regarding whether it was saying one thing publicly regarding the safety of something while their own research and scientists were saying otherwise. I wasn't aware that they were prosecuting any scientists?goodusername_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Yes, he will prosecute the ones who got it "wrong". "Wrong" will be determined politically, and not scientifically.EvilSnack_{November 14, 2015
November
11
Nov
14
14
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply