Frank Tipler covers up Reid Bryson’s failed prediction

Frank Tipler tells us:

Last year, Reid Bryson, the “father of climatology,” and a leading AGW skeptic, passed away. Bryson’s actual achievements are the hallmark of a genuine scientist as opposed to the work done by AGW advocates.

A true scientist demonstrates his knowledge by using it to make predictions which can be confirmed or refuted. Bryson successfully predicted, in December 1944, that the so-called “Caine Mutiny Typhoon” would hit Adm. William Halsey’s Third Fleet.

And:

What counter-intuitive predictions have the Global Warmers ever made? I invite you to look. I myself could not find a single counter-intuitive prediction made by any major Global Warmer. But I have found cases of them trying to cover up failed predictions.

Tipler would seem to be covering up Bryson’s failed predictions about climate (rather than weather). Back in the 70s Bryson predicted global cooling. Indeed when global warming deniers claim that there was a scientific consensus in support of global cooling in the 70s, they are often referring to Bryson.

Comments

#1 Paul
February 18, 2009

GWDs and GWSs are confused people. Well they are if you view it from a naive perspective. But of course that would be naive. If you look at their ‘work’ (can it be called that?) from a realist perspective then they are just playing a political game.
#2 bi -- IJI
February 18, 2009

> counter-intuitive predictions

The goalpost-shifting aside, we have once more the right-wing obsession with “counter-intuitive predictions”.

I think by “counter-intuitive predictions” they’re referring to predictions which go against the scientific methods of deduction, induction, and abduction. E.g. If you slash tax rates, then tax revenues will increase, which will result in smaller government, and if you raise tax rates, then there may be unknown “unintended consequences”, and since they’re unknown, we know that they must be very bad.

In reality-speak, “counter-intuitive” is known as “bollocks”.
#3 Vagueofgodalming
February 18, 2009

the scientific methods of … abduction

…and this is how the great “Warmists kidnap people” meme of 2009 got started.
#4 Ezzthetic
February 18, 2009

“counter-intuitive” is known as “bollocks”.

In the Sex Pistols, Johnny Rotten’s character, faced with obvious bollocks, never minded them.

Perhaps we should do the same.
#5 winnebago
February 18, 2009

Wasn’t Svensmark was a also a “cooling” advocate in the 1970s?
#6 ngong
February 18, 2009

A true scientist demonstrates his knowledge by using it to make predictions which can be confirmed or refuted

This is Tipler of “at the end of time everybody will be reincarnated at the hands of a perfectly compassionate god, whereby they will be able to make love to Racquel Welch” fame, right?
#7 eddie
February 18, 2009

A true scientist demonstrates his knowledge by using it to make predictions which can be confirmed or refuted.

Like this?

LULZ
#8 Dave
February 18, 2009

Just a thought…

To the layman, the prediction that the stratosphere should cool at the same time as the surface warms may seem “counter-intuitive”
#9 John P
February 18, 2009

Take Tipler’s pronouncements with a large dose of “woo-off.” I like George Ellis’ comment in his review of “The Physics of Immortality”: the book is “a masterpiece of pseudoscience … the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline.” The Wikipedia article also mentions that Michael Shermer devoted most of a chapter of “Why People Believe Weird Things” to a discussion of Tipler’s thesis. Tipler’s freedom from normal constraints seems to completely violate Feynman’s dictum that “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
#10 Eli Rabett
February 18, 2009

Dave,

You can find a reasonable explanation of stratospheric cooling here tho there are also links to follow
#11 Brian Schmidt
February 18, 2009

AGW predicts that the early 21st-Century rate of warming will be much faster than the warming rate in the 20th Century (which was .06C/decade). I’m willing to bet a substantial amount of money that the rate for the next decade will more than twice the 20th Century per-decade rate. I think that would be pretty counter-intuitive from a skeptic’s position, that warming would more than double after 150 years of previous warming.
#12 Dave
February 18, 2009

Thanks for the link Eli.

I was however, reacting to the following text

“What counter-intuitive predictions have the Global Warmers ever made? I invite you to look. I myself could not find a single counter-intuitive prediction made by any major Global Warmer. But I have found cases of them trying to cover up failed predictions.”

The point I was trying to make was that while simultaneous strat-cooling and lower trop-warming may seem counter-intuitive, it can be demonstrated pretty easily by a 1-D RT model.

1. We know the relevant spectroscopy
2. We know how to solve the Radiative transfer equation
3. The observed trends are in-line with the simplest explanation…..increasing GHGs (and some O3 decreases).

I lurk on a few Blogs…including yours Eli…but rarely post. Something about this article by Tipler really p#$##$ed me off though.
#13 Nick
February 18, 2009

Frank gets my vote for the dumbest denialist stocking-filler this season. Sad and pointless.
#14 Marion Delgado
February 19, 2009

Vagueofgodalming:

Technically, abductive reasoning is the only part of the scientific process the denialists have down cold.
#15 James Redford
February 19, 2009

Regarding the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (A.G.W.), as Prof. Tipler points out, this is a hypothesis which has been repeatedly experimentally disproven. Recall that it only takes a single experiment to disprove a theory (so long as the experiment and its data are correct). For more on that, see “The ETS: Completely unnecessary,” David Evans, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), December 19, 2008.

As its supporters do a good job of pointing out, A.G.W. theory is an irrational dogma. Those heretics who insist upon actual scientific empiricism will be accused of engaging in “denialism,” with mendacious criticisms made against them.

The reason why A.G.W. theory has become such a virulent dogma is due to the political power that it’s being used to justify. If government and its connected interests could find a way to get as much power out of which sock, the left or the right, a person puts on first in the morning then we would never hear the end of the alleged horrors brought about by putting socks on the wrong foot first, and that if the government doesn’t step in to save humanity from itself then it could well mean our extinction. Anyone who doubted the sock-crisis and pointed out that it’s disproved by the empirical evidence would be accused of being party to “denialism.” Later on they would be charged under state edicts which threaten loss of their tenure (such as A.G.W. heretic Bjørn Lomborg). And if the government’s anti-sock-on-wrong-foot-first efforts managed to actually cause humanity’s extinction, then this result would be cheered (before their own deaths) by those who consider humanity as a cancer, with the sock-crisis regarded by them as merely being one example of mankind’s cancerous ways.

A.G.W. theory attracts etatists of multifarious stripes. They see in it a means of empowering the government and micromanaging people’s lives. The theory of A.G.W. is a collectivist’s wet dream, as not only do they have their misanthropy confirmed (to the effect that mankind is a cancer), but so also they have a pretext for social engineering.

It’s very unfortunate that A.G.W. isn’t true, as life loves a warm, carbon dioxide-rich Earth. It would be quite a life-giving boon to humanity and the other critters if A.G.W. had been true.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”–H. L. Mencken, “Women as Outlaws,” A Mencken Chrestomathy, p. 29 (1949); first published in The Smart Set, December 1921.
#16 sod
February 19, 2009

A.G.W. theory attracts etatists of multifarious stripes. They see in it a means of empowering the government and micromanaging people’s lives. The theory of A.G.W. is a collectivist’s wet dream, as not only do they have their misanthropy confirmed (to the effect that mankind is a cancer), but so also they have a pretext for social engineering.

i am really glad that the honest oil industry are fighting those false prophets.

the always truthful bush administration also put up a valiant fight against the climate scientist who plan to take over the world.

keep fighting!
#17 Dano
February 19, 2009

Is there an award for amalgamating a mishmash of denialist talking points, swallowing them hook, line, and sinker, and then puking them as blog comment in a pattern of dadaist/expressionist technicolor vomit?

If there is, then gosh durnit that James Redford should be a perennial nominee for such an award. Hoo-boy that was an amazing eructation of f’n drivel, son.

Congrats, Jimmy! You’re a ~~loser~~ winner! Your acceptance speech should be under one minute, thirty seconds please.

Best,

D
#18 Gaz
February 19, 2009

Dano: “Is there an award for amalgamating a mishmash of denialist talking points…”

Come on, Dano – no hockey stick, no hot spot, no fraud, no cult or religion, no wine-growing in Scotland or sunbaking in Greenland. Not even any Al Gore for goodness sake.

This guy doesn’t even come close. I don’t think he’s even trying.
#19 bi -- IJI
February 19, 2009

> A.G.W. theory attracts etatists of multifarious stripes. They see in it a means of empowering the government and micromanaging people’s lives.

As I wrote at DeSmogBlog :

> So how does this work? Carbon emitters are required to buy credits, and somehow Yuri Sergeyevich Zamenov will be able to find out when you last had sex with that libertarian girl?
#20 Chris O'Neill
February 20, 2009

James Redford:

The theory of A.G.W. is a collectivist’s wet dream

Amazing piece of hypocrisy after the rant that led up to this statement.
#21 WotWot
February 20, 2009

Frank Tippler is basically nuts.
#22 WotWot
February 20, 2009

Frank Tipler
#23 Fitz
February 20, 2009

Is wine growing in Scotland supposed to be a good thing? Have they never tasted Buckfast?
#24 Dano
February 20, 2009

Gaz:

That particular category doesn’t mandate using “top-line or most-used denialist talking points”, but instead (and I quote) “for use of any and all received wisdom and arranged in such a manner as to make the commenter appear toootally f’n bonkers” (sect 1.6 (a))

You are confusing my suggestion with the award for “Most Creative Use of the Most Popular Long-Ago Refuted Talking Points”

[/making up stuff as I go along]

Best,

D
#25 Bud
February 20, 2009

“Recall that it only takes a single experiment to disprove a theory (so long as the experiment and its data are correct).”

Not really. A theory is considered as such because it already has ample evidence to support it. It is much more likely that your hypothetical ‘one experiment’, if good, will cause that theory to be modified, thus strengthening it.

We hear about these kind of ‘fatal flaws’ all the time. They are rarely fatal, and frequently not even flaws.
#26 dsn13
March 12, 2009

‘‘We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find somethingwrong with it?’’

—Phil Jones, developer of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
temperature history, in a letter to Australian
climatologist Warrick Hughes, February 21, 2005

Doesn’t strike me as a very scientific approach.