2011-04-01 11:30:47Article by Ole Humlum in Norwegian media
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238

Rob, I completely failed to connect the dots but a while back, Julien Cochard emailed me a translation of a Humlum article in the Norwegian press (red highlight added by Julien):

Climate models and certainty

One of the central questions in the climate debate is how large the probability is for climate change being anthropogenic. The IPCC works based on the assumption that CO2 is the main reason for the increase in global temperatures. And this is, again according to IPCC, CO2 that comes from the burning of fossil fuels, i.e. coal, gas and oil. In 2007, Professor Eystein Jansen, main author of the science part of the IPCC report of the same year, stated during a discussion with Professor Ole Humlum in the NRK (National TV and radio channels) show "Worth to know" that according to the IPCC it is 90% certain that changes in the climate during the last 50 years are mainly due to human activities. In the same show professor Jansen explained further that it is not possible to compute such a certainty. Those 90% show only the share of scientists working for the IPCC supporting the idea that CO2 has a large effect on climate. In other words, in reality it has never been a question of certainty in a statistical meaning.

Forgetting this huge and complete misunderstanding, even a computation of the certainty of the reasons for climate change is completely worthless. Especially when it is not demonstrated in the first place that what one's attempting to assess (here, the hypothesis that CO2 is responsible for global warming) is correct. The CO2-hypothesis as it is formulated right now does not even fulfills the requirements of science, so we are miles away from being able to calculate a meaningful certainty on it. The reason for its lack of scientific foundation is the lack of ability for the CO2-hypothesis to come with forecasts that can be checked now or within a couple of years' time. Usually it is said that we have to wait 50 to 100 years to check if the hypothesis is correct, which is completely unrealistic in a scientific context. Science must obviously follow its own established rules. If the rules are broken, the result becomes meaningless and unscientific. Therefore, we are in the awkward situation where a lot of planning today is done based on an idea that cannot be checked scientifically.

Hopefully the IPCC is not considered as a scientific organization but as a process. But there are many scientists participating in this process. Among others, there are many that are calling themselves climatologists. So it is a huge paradox for us that the process can still operate with such a wrong scientific certainty. The models that the IPCC is relying on are actually not based on an established and recognized theory. The whole thing is an hypothesis that is not verified, and it becomes completely wrong, yes, unscientific, to come up with a certainty estimation. This is a theoretical certainty, and there is no method to handle it. It would have been something else if "the uncertainty" had been an expression for the uncertainty in the climate models, disregarding the uncertainty in the measurements, but it is not the case.

And the big paradox we are facing lies first and foremost in that so many scientists accept this sort of theoretical unscientific certainty. Now its is known that a couple of scientists have withdrawn from the IPCC. But we are still left with hundreds. What is it that prevents the scientists from protesting, or from reformulating the hypothesis they often base their own work on?

Erik Bye (PhD), Ole Humlum (Professor), Kjell Stordahl (PhD)

2011-04-01 11:59:56
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

I would like to add that Erik Bye had an article on forskning.no (forskning = research) regarding education material to schools in Norway (he criticised the policy adviced by norwegian officials on this issue).

He has at multiple occations been asked to document his claims (mwp 2-3 degrees warmer and lia 2-3 degrees colder), by me and others in the thread at forskning.no - the quest for documentation was asked very politly I would add - but he fled the discussion on claims that the discussion was not beeing serious and that participants was not writing under full name.

Erik Bye in Norway has no reputaion what so ever (personal opinion), and has so far not been willing to document his claims (lies).

The article (BS) by Bye got the following reply (in english by google translate).