Jim Gorman Comment

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

Time series, i.e., a series where time is the independent variable and something else is the dependent variable, that is, temperature, will only ever provide a correlation unless time is part of the functional relationship between the two. That is why Andy uses the term correlation so often. It is not physical evidence.

Linear regression was originally used to validate the functional relationship between an actual independent variable in an equation and a dependent variable which is the output of the functional mathematical relationship. In other words, does the equation accurately predict the relationship between input and output.

Once one has recognized a correlation, then one can postulate a hypothesis. Further correlation proves nothing. Only a physical connection can prove the hypothesis works to predict an outcome. Climate science has spent 50 years and billions of dollars trying to show better and better correlation as if that will prove something. It won’t.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

Interesting comment.   He is correct. Correlation does not imply causation without linking evidence.

[Sunsettommy]

Interesting comment.   He is correct. Correlation does not imply causation without linking evidence.

Bellman makes stupid replies to Gorman in the thread who is getting schooled by Gorman big time.

It is embarrassing when fools like Bellman don't realize they are making fool of themselves in public.

[Sunsettommy]

Example on how Jim Gorman is destroying Bellmans foolish replies, the quotes are from Bellman,

The CO2 models used in this post are not using time as an independent variable.

Are you joking? Every graph on here is using time on the x-axis. That is the normal independent variable. The only other interpretation is that CO2 creates time! Not likely.

The first use of the least square best fit was in predicting the position of Ceres based on limited observations.

Again, time does not CAUSE the position of Ceres. Time may be useful in the case of periodic phenomena, but again the cause is related to a physical functional relationship based on mass and gravitational forces. Have you never had to calculate the orbits of bodies in physics? It is not easy to even do circular orbits let alone elliptical.

What do you mean by a “physical connection”? How would you prove that the connection exists, rather than just treat it as a hypothesis backed by strong evidence?

Why am I not surprised. A physical connection is the functional relationship between phenomena. A physical connection can be described by a chemical reaction formula, a pressure based on the ideal gas formula, etc. In other words, a mathematical relationship predicting values of various components.

This is the whole purpose of Andy’s essay. The models obviously use CO2 as an independent variable. That is what they were designed to do. Yet they fail as Andy shows very well. That means there are other variables at work that combine to make our global climate. Trying to correlate two variables, temperature and CO2, based on time is becoming a waste of time AND MONEY.

That’s one option. But more usually you start with a hypothesis and then test is with the data.

You’ve never really done science have you? Science begins with an observation. You then proceed to see if you can find a connection that may result in a physical relationship. I said “Once one has recognized a correlation, then one can postulate a hypothesis.” I never said that a correlation couldn’t be used to generate information that results in an hypothesis. That is your interpretation of what I said.

I also said “Only a physical connection can prove the hypothesis works to predict an outcome. Climate science has spent 50 years and billions of dollars trying to show better and better correlation as if that will prove something. It won’t.” I stand by that. CO2 is not the only cause of an increase in temperature. There is most likely a multivariate cause. Concentrating on only one variable, and probably a small one at that, is fruitless.

The fact that government grants dictate the direction of research is laughable. Explain why large experiments using a cylinder like a rural water district tank can not be used to gather information about CO2’s effects. Expensive? Sure, but considering the trillions being spent on finding a genuine correlation, it would be a drop in the proverbial bucket. That is probably the most condemning part of climate science, that is, no physical experimentation to determine physical connections and their mathematical relationships.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

His problem is obvious to me.  He thinks Correlation = Causation.  He is happy with that assumption without evidence to prove it. This is the state of climate science today.  They are happy with the premise devoid of facts to prove it and they don't care because it is what they want.  This is no longer about the science, it's about the political power they gain. Nothing more than that.

We are trying to combat willful ignorance. How do you deal with that?

[Sunsettommy]

Here is the rub, I have no big science degree to lean on, but I can often see early on that what bilge is being pushed because I at least understand that for a hypothesis to develop it MUST be based on a physical phenomenon that can be measured and tested it is for the basis of the long known "Scientific Method" which is a guiding principle for all researchers to follow in order to create a coherent understanding something new.

From Britannica,

Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.

The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science. In fact, the scientific method is applied broadly in science, across many different fields. Many empirical sciences, especially the social sciences, use mathematical tools borrowed from probability theory and statistics, together with outgrowths of these, such as decision theory, game theory, utility theory, and operations research. Philosophers of science have addressed general methodological problems, such as the nature of scientific explanation and the justification of induction.

LINK

===============

A bunch of untestable climate models isn't science at all.