|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 25, 2010 20:03:44 GMT
"Again your response doesn't follow what I said. I said: "That would explain why no skeptics have demonstrated low climate sensitivity with a GCM wouldn't it? Because they are not willing to violate physics."
Rather than me prove a negative (that they can't do it), I am asking for skeptics to prove they can do it. The fact they haven't done so suggests to me that they can't change it in a physically correct way to achieve low climate sensitivity."
Physics has little to do with the argument on GCM's - all a computer program can do is what the programmer told it to do. If it repeatedly adjusts internal processing due to what the programmer thought was a sanity check - then the result will be just what the programmer expected.
At the moment - the model forecasts from the IPCC's last report are all incorrect having over estimated the increase in temperatures. Similarly those models forecasting ocean temperatures have overestimated them.
A scientist would go back and examine the models to try to find what assumptions or calculations were wrong or what variables had been omitted or incorrectly included.
Instead SoCold you put out a challenge to use the faulty GCM programs to forecast something different. And you are surprised that no-one is attempting this?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 25, 2010 21:34:41 GMT
"Physics has little to do with the argument on GCM's - all a computer program can do is what the programmer told it to do."
yes yes yes I've agreed with this. What I am asking is why don't skeptics make a GCM show low climate sensitivity. You are telling me is that skeptics could do this, but not explaining why they haven't done so.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Apr 25, 2010 22:57:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 26, 2010 7:57:39 GMT
Fundamentally socold is right. This list (with the qualifications below) show that even strongly sceptic papers can get into the main peer reviewed journals. Complaining that Spencer is given a hard time is bogus - noone should get a free ride, and most scientists don't. No he is absolutely wrong. You have a handful that have gotten into the more popular journals and the only real one that remotely seems unbiased is GRL. What is bogus is your lack of understanding regarding Spencer's complaints. He was not asking for a free ride but a reasonable explanation for rejection not arbitrary dismissal or no reason at all. Ah! Poor widdle Spencer. Those journals are so MEAN to him. Please show me the proportion of scientists who think that a rejection of their paper was reasonable I didn't say the headline was inaccurate. I said it was misleading. I gave two examples of papers that didn't involve a model. Your latching onto the word model shows your problem here. Don't have a hissy fit. You have no idea where my goalposts were or are.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 26, 2010 16:34:38 GMT
"Physics has little to do with the argument on GCM's - all a computer program can do is what the programmer told it to do." yes yes yes I've agreed with this. What I am asking is why don't skeptics make a GCM show low climate sensitivity. You are telling me is that skeptics could do this, but not explaining why they haven't done so. Simple Socold. Its an issue of attribution. Spencer appears to be using chaos theory (if I understood the summary) affecting the biggest driver in the atmosphere, namely cloud variation where even a 1% to 2% change can explain the differences we have been seeing. This has been completely ignored as possible attribution by climate modelers. If they considered it climate models and sensitivity could be all over the place essentially making the production of a model a useless exercise. I might be mistaken but it appears Spencer is having immense fun with this in his most recent book to debunk creatio. . . .uh. . . .er. . . .I mean AGW. LOL! Whats next Socold? Are you going to start criticizing the absence of evolution models?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Apr 26, 2010 17:02:22 GMT
steve, "Don't have a hissy fit. You have no idea where my goalposts were or are." Which makes it clear that you do move them, as well as makes moving them very easy for you.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 26, 2010 18:34:54 GMT
"Physics has little to do with the argument on GCM's - all a computer program can do is what the programmer told it to do." yes yes yes I've agreed with this. What I am asking is why don't skeptics make a GCM show low climate sensitivity. You are telling me is that skeptics could do this, but not explaining why they haven't done so. Simple Socold. Its an issue of attribution. Spencer appears to be using chaos theory (if I understood the summary) affecting the biggest driver in the atmosphere, namely cloud variation where even a 1% to 2% change can explain the differences we have been seeing. This has been completely ignored as possible attribution by climate modelers. If they considered it climate models and sensitivity could be all over the place essentially making the production of a model a useless exercise. Then skeptics demonstrate that is so by showing that GCM results can be made to say anything. That's what I am asking. Either "models can be made to say anything" or they can't. To argue both that models can be made to say anything and also that skeptics can't demonstrate that is a contradiction. Not wise to bring creationists into this given that Roy Spencer thinks the theory of evolution is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 26, 2010 20:08:11 GMT
Simple Socold. Its an issue of attribution.
Spencer appears to be using chaos theory (if I understood the summary) affecting the biggest driver in the atmosphere, namely cloud variation where even a 1% to 2% change can explain the differences we have been seeing. This has been completely ignored as possible attribution by climate modelers. If they considered it climate models and sensitivity could be all over the place essentially making the production of a model a useless exercise.
Then skeptics demonstrate that is so by showing that GCM results can be made to say anything.
That's what I am asking.
Either "models can be made to say anything" or they can't. To argue both that models can be made to say anything and also that skeptics can't demonstrate that is a contradiction.
I didn't say a model can't be produced, I said there is no reason to produce a model. Big difference. For it to be useful to invest in a model you have to have a clear testable hypothesis. Then you run the models for however long it takes to test them.
Obviously if you have no information regarding natural climate variation and natural variation is important you cannot create a useful model. That provides as good of explanation as any for why climate models are not working, namely their creators were too dumb to realize the importance of natural variation before they created their models and likely by the time they learn enough more about natural variation most likely all their work will be hopelessly out of date.
So for a smart guy entering the field of climate science why on earth would he be so ignorant as to choose to become a climate modeler?
Ultimately your argument is merely a rehash of a 300 year old argument between Bishop George Berkeley and John Locke.
You are playing the role of John Locke here and every serious philosopher recognizes that Locke lost the argument. So you are the loser in this argument as well.
The point is you can create a model that claims anything you wish but that is not proof that what you claim is true. Bishop Berkeley correctly pointed out that Locke's argument was not established via the model he had hypothesized because one could substitute anything for his theory and by doing so make as solid of an argument as he was making.
Its a classic argument taught to beginning philosophical students that just because you can model something doesn't prove it in any way to be true.
The way you parade this around like a donkey's arse merely demonstrates you couldn't pass a philosophy 1A class. Proof is established by observation and experiment not via hypothesis.
I might be mistaken but it appears Spencer is having immense fun with this in his most recent book to debunk creatio. . . .uh. . . .er. . . .I mean AGW. LOL!
Not wise to bring creationists into this given that Roy Spencer thinks the theory of evolution is wrong.
I think you are mistaken in what Spencer believes Socold. Perhaps you simply do not possess sufficient grey matter to parse out Spencer's beliefs.
But it is important to note it appears that Spencer is using the Evolutionist's alternative to creation by an intelligent being argument here. . . .chaotic evolution.
So are you saying the argument approach of the Evolutionist's is complete bunk Socold? Obviously Spencer is not suggesting that since thats the argument he is using.
It is apparent Spencer realizes the Evolutionary chaos theory based argument that is a fundamentally sound alternative explanation? But think back to part I of this post, that still isn't proof.
And if you accept the Evolutionist argument how can you deny it for use in climate science?
Like I said I suspect Spencer is having a little fun. I am eagerly awaiting for you to take a consistent position rather than randomly walking back and forth between arguments.
BTW, there is a possible answer to this question and it was subject to a Nobel Prize in econometrics. Unfortunately for you AGW flunks that test so that is no help for your case at least until we better understand natural variation.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 27, 2010 3:42:12 GMT
I didn't say a model can't be produced, I said there is no reason to produce a model. Big difference. For it to be useful to invest in a model you have to have a clear testable hypothesis. Then you run the models for however long it takes to test them. Obviously if you have no information regarding natural climate variation and natural variation is important you cannot create a useful model. Your argument here implicitly accepts that current understanding of the physics of climate shows high climate sensitivity as a robust result (that is a result which is always forthcoming despite the wriggle room in uncertainty). Your argument instead is that current understanding is incomplete and if it were complete that result may no longer hold. Ie you are saying the result may be shown wrong in the future. I can't argue with that, and indeed my entire position is based on current science with the caveat that the science might change. My position will change when the science changes, not before it. I think that goes for many other people too, including a lot of scientists. That's why the robust result of current understanding of physics carries some weight. I don't share your view that we have insufficient data to model climate at the current time. It is the case that current understanding of physics shows high climate sensitivity everytime and it's been that way for at least 30 years, despite advances in modelling and understanding of climate. Furthermore the simple as well as the complex models show the same robust result. On a sidenote, notice how long it's taken for me to get skeptics to admit that they are relying on current understanding being incomplete, rather than scientists ignoring current understanding. In general I find skeptics reluctant to talk about climate models and even then they engage in rather childish ways with silliness like "Computers can be made to say anything" and "garbage in garbage out", which is miles away from the actual case that high climate sensitivity is the result of current physics. Why is this? I am able to read his own words just fine. You asked for it, here is Roy Spencer on evolution: "Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc."Besides the point he's wrong about the absense of transitional fossils, he clearly does not accept the theory of evolution. Furthermore: "One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith"he thinks it's not science. Which is why I found your "Spencer is having immense fun with this in his most recent book to debunk creatio. . . .uh. . . .er. . . .I mean AGW" comment a little ironic.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 27, 2010 6:37:32 GMT
I didn't say a model can't be produced, I said there is no reason to produce a model. Big difference. For it to be useful to invest in a model you have to have a clear testable hypothesis. Then you run the models for however long it takes to test them. Obviously if you have no information regarding natural climate variation and natural variation is important you cannot create a useful model.
Your argument here implicitly accepts that current understanding of the physics of climate shows high climate sensitivity as a robust result (that is a result which is always forthcoming despite the wriggle room in uncertainty).
You don't read well. Nothing is implied by talk and hypothesis Socold. You can only claim robustness based upon known and measurable perceived effects. Ignorance in any form does not make anybody's argument stronger.
Your argument instead is that current understanding is incomplete and if it were complete that result may no longer hold. Ie you are saying the result may be shown wrong in the future.
No I am not saying that. I am saying that truth is not established via ignorance. Your theory has to be established on its own.
I can't argue with that, and indeed my entire position is based on current science with the caveat that the science might change.
Science doesn't change Socold. It is your mind that changes. Any previous science after you learned something was entirely a figment of your imagination, not science at all.
My position will change when the science changes, not before it. I think that goes for many other people too, including a lot of scientists.
Indeed thats exactly how people come to religion too.
That's why the robust result of current understanding of physics carries some weight.
Indeed religious fervor is robust also.
I don't share your view that we have insufficient data to model climate at the current time.
That also is a religious view. No quantification Socold, just a belief.
It is the case that current understanding of physics shows high climate sensitivity everytime and it's been that way for at least 30 years, despite advances in modelling and understanding of climate. Furthermore the simple as well as the complex models show the same robust result.
And thats why Trenberth says its a travesty you can't explain what is happening? LOL!
On a sidenote, notice how long it's taken for me to get skeptics to admit that they are relying on current understanding being incomplete, rather than scientists ignoring current understanding. In general I find skeptics reluctant to talk about climate models and even then they engage in rather childish ways with silliness like "Computers can be made to say anything" and "garbage in garbage out", which is miles away from the actual case that high climate sensitivity is the result of current physics. Why is this?
Its that way because you think your math is a substitute for observation and experiment. This is usually a view held by folks who live in ivory towers or are too young and too stupid.
I think you are mistaken in what Spencer believes Socold. Perhaps you simply do not possess sufficient grey matter to parse out Spencer's beliefs.
I am able to read his own words just fine. You asked for it, here is Roy Spencer on evolution:
"Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc."
Besides the point he's wrong about the absense of transitional fossils, he clearly does not accept the theory of evolution. Furthermore:
"One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith"
he thinks it's not science.
Which is why I found your "Spencer is having immense fun with this in his most recent book to debunk creatio. . . .uh. . . .er. . . .I mean AGW" comment a little ironic.
There are basically two valid possibilities. How much you accept evolution as being compatible with both possibilities is not limited in any way.
Possibility one is an offshoot of the argument that such an incredible universe had to have had a designer. The second possibility is the universe was created by accident. Which you choose to believe is a matter of faith.
It isn't science when you hypothesize a continuous evolution of species when you don't have a complete record, its a hypothesis. Now some hypotheses can be well established and some can't.
Now here is where it gets complicated.
A hypothesis on climate can be established by making a model and then through extensive observation notice that the model can reliably predict future climate. Of course to do that you have to know what drives climate otherwise you won't be accurately predicting climate, like the Met Office or our current GCMs which have fallen on their face.
Now you could also try to create an evolution model and predict what new species were going to emerge. But gee again you would need to know how evolution happens to predict that. Almost certainly if you attempted it, it would also fall on its face.
But get this! Now if you could create an evolution model would that mean the world was created by accident? Or was it created by a set of design guidelines? Design guidelines? Who or what established those?
Its a bit of a chicken or egg problem.
So inevitably somebody came up with a chaos theory to deal with these pesky little problems. Only problem with chaos theory is it is lawless and you can't predict anything from it.
So for the atheist chaos theory is the refuge from having to admit to a universe designer. But if the universe operates chaotically that means you can't predict it either. Climate maybe?
Indeed climate is a much bigger system than organic life so being higher level it could as likely be acting chaotically as evolution might . . .as in your mind.
So as I understand it thats Spencer's argument for climate variability. It chaotically shifts from one mode to another.
Gee, isn't climate responsible for the primordial soup that chaotically evolved into a thinking man? How on earth could you have predicted that?
So Spencer seems to be using your evolution argument even if you don't know what it is. But it doesn't matter no need to cry over it because that is true for everybody and it is indeed ultimately a matter of faith.
And that my friend is the problem with assuming ignorance makes your arguments more robust.
As I pointed out a Nobel Prize was awarded to the guy that developed statistical approaches of dealing with these kinds of problems, statistical approaches that AGW flunks. If AGW passed those tests you could claim some scientific weight regarding the robustness of your models. But because it flunks you cannot.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 27, 2010 13:58:09 GMT
steve, "Don't have a hissy fit. You have no idea where my goalposts were or are." Which makes it clear that you do move them, as well as makes moving them very easy for you. If you want to be pedantic (and I know that you like being pedantic mr "trapped heat" hater) it does not make such a thing clear at all. Nor does it imply such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 27, 2010 14:03:41 GMT
Lets cut to the chase. My point is very clear. So here is the question laid out nice and simple:
Do you or do you not claim that low climate sensitivity can be demonstrated with physics as we currently understand it?
It's a straight forward question and it surely carries either a yes or a no answer. I like that, it's nice and simple and by answering it you will pin yourself to a position. I can see why you might not want to pin yourself to an answer of that question, because it is a trap. But it's only a trap to skeptics who want to insist that "models can be made to say anything" and that climate models are rigged. If you aren't one of those skeptics you will have no trouble answering.
If you answer no then we are in agreement. It means the models cannot be made to say anything. It means that the physics as we currently understand it leads to a high sensitivity result. It means scientists aren't misrepresenting physics as we understand it. It also means the many skeptic arguments that scientists are handling the physics wrong (eg posts about convection bypassing greenhouse gases) are bogus. The scientists are doing it right per our current understanding of climate. That understanding might be wrong, but noone yet knows how.
If on the otherhand you answer yes to the question (ie you think low climate sensitivity can be shown with physics as we currently understand it), that means it should be possible to make a climate model exhibit low climate sensitivity. Not only should it be possible, but there is a very big motive to do so - not just for skeptics. Currently all climate models show high climate sensitivity, showing that to not hold would be a famous result.
So we have means and motive, yet no action. That's the flaw with the 'yes' answer - the fact that noone has got a GCM to exhibit low climate sensitivity.
It's not good enough to say skeptics don't believe in climate modeling, or can't be bothered, or something. Even if they don't believe in climate modeling they are happy to use model results to make a point in other areas (eg tropical tropospheric hotspot). Why should demonstrating low climate sensitivity be any different? It's a very important demonstration and would be a large blow to AGW, it would show that even our current understanding of physics doesn't soley show high climate sensitivity.
30 years and it hasn't been demonstrated. Therefore I think it's safe to say that thus far physics as we understand it cannot support low climate sensitivity. That doesn't make low climate sensitivity wrong, but it does go a long way to cutting down on some of the more silly posts about how climate models are neglecting known physics of convection, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Apr 27, 2010 15:40:10 GMT
Nice trap socold. Yes or No on low climate sensitivity. This is the kind of choice I often see programmers build in to routines such as:
"Are you sure you want to delete this file?"
"Yes" "No"
But I always want the next most obvious choices, such as "Always" or Never".
Where models are concerned, and where low or high sensitivity is the question, then I will draw with a wax pencil on my screen a little radio button and the text inside it that reads:
"Who cares"
and try to click on it.
Because I, for one, really don't care. Model predictions of future hydrogeologic conditions are a mainstay of my professional diet. Reverse engineering them something I actually manage to do in my sleep (requiring the iPhone verbal notetaker be within grasp when I wake up with some poignant realization in the wee hours). I make money debunking them, and in the process have found no other real use for them except to test the odd boundary condition or something else rather esoteric. But reality is something I have not associated with complex modeling of the natural world for quite some time. Seemingly more true as the models become ever more complex. It would seem unlikely that I am to be allowed any say in whether or not my tax dollars are spent on such activity, but when the results of such shenanigans indicate that I will also have no say in being heavily taxed as a result of a model run, musings on such things as spending an equal amount on arms and ammunition do shuffle to the front of the lobes.
So my vote is "I don't care".
And if the radio button option on climate models were to read:
"I vow to never ever again consider the possibility of believing in models regardless of the potential for calamitous circumstances that might in any way whatsoever befall me as a result thereof, including death, dismemberment, incurable sexually transmittable diseases etc. etc."
I would click on that first.
So whaddyathink? Does that squeeze into your "Yes" or "No" option?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 27, 2010 15:56:16 GMT
Lets cut to the chase. My point is very clear. So here is the question laid out nice and simple:
Do you or do you not claim that low climate sensitivity can be demonstrated with physics as we currently understand it?
It's a straight forward question and it surely carries either a yes or a no answer. I like that, it's nice and simple and by answering it you will pin yourself to a position. I can see why you might not want to pin yourself to an answer of that question, because it is a trap. But it's only a trap to skeptics who want to insist that "models can be made to say anything" and that climate models are rigged. If you aren't one of those skeptics you will have no trouble answering.
Yes. I think chaos theory is well established in physics and provides an equal chance for low climate sensitivity.
That of course does not exclude the possibility that climate changes through other means than random diversions.
But none of those have been established using scientific principles. You claim you can model it but thats merely the hypothesis in your mind for a non-random variation to climate that is yet to be established.
If you answer no then we are in agreement. It means the models cannot be made to say anything. It means that the physics as we currently understand it leads to a high sensitivity result. It means scientists aren't misrepresenting physics as we understand it. It also means the many skeptic arguments that scientists are handling the physics wrong (eg posts about convection bypassing greenhouse gases) are bogus. The scientists are doing it right per our current understanding of climate. That understanding might be wrong, but noone yet knows how.
But I said Yes.
If on the otherhand you answer yes to the question (ie you think low climate sensitivity can be shown with physics as we currently understand it), that means it should be possible to make a climate model exhibit low climate sensitivity. Not only should it be possible, but there is a very big motive to do so - not just for skeptics. Currently all climate models show high climate sensitivity, showing that to not hold would be a famous result.
So we have means and motive, yet no action. That's the flaw with the 'yes' answer - the fact that noone has got a GCM to exhibit low climate sensitivity.
LOL! Thats total nonsense on so many levels Socold.
First of all the only reason a CO2 GCM has any potential value is on the presumption you can estimate future CO2 emissions.
I could spend a fortune building a solar GCM but it would have no value because I have no basis for being able to estimate future changes to the sun.
You claim value in disproving the CO2-based GCMs; but a model is not proof of anything. The only thing that can disprove CO2-based GCMs is observations. You can't seem to get away from your belief that a hypothesis is self proving.
And since observations are not establishing the accuracy of the GCMs. . . .gee golly Socold. . . .do you suppose the climate is acting a bit insensitive after observing it is far under performing the models?
It's not good enough to say skeptics don't believe in climate modeling, or can't be bothered, or something. Even if they don't believe in climate modeling they are happy to use model results to make a point in other areas (eg tropical tropospheric hotspot).
If you read my responses to you will note I explicitly said modeling of processes within the atmosphere can be fruitful. You are basically offering up a fallacious argument here. I said it was premature to build CO2 models of the atmosphere. Building real circulation models of the atmosphere, (vs slab models, a short cut only taken to race ahead of science), makes sense.
Why should demonstrating low climate sensitivity be any different? It's a very important demonstration and would be a large blow to AGW, it would show that even our current understanding of physics doesn't soley show high climate sensitivity.
Observations are already putting your models on the fast track for the dust bin Socold.
It would be foolish to spend the money to use a model to prove low sensitivity as models prove nothing. Observations and experiments prove all.
So really the job of skeptic scientists is first developing your expertise and reputation in being able to make forecasts. Then take it to the public.
Thats something the climatology community is flat falling on their face at doing. Quiet observation usually proves to be the horse to ride for the long trip until you really know the answer.
Your problem is really you didn't listen to Dr. Roger Revelle and listened to Al Gore instead.
30 years and it hasn't been demonstrated. Therefore I think it's safe to say that thus far physics as we understand it cannot support low climate sensitivity. That doesn't make low climate sensitivity wrong, but it does go a long way to cutting down on some of the more silly posts about how climate models are neglecting known physics of convection, etc.
The illlogic moves on.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 27, 2010 16:50:41 GMT
Building real circulation models of the atmosphere, (vs slab models, a short cut only taken to race ahead of science), makes sense.
Just wanted to elaborate on this for a moment. As a child I had a brief infatuation with models of planes and warships. I say it was brief because my interest in models proved to not be a desire to build nice replicates of these impressive machines but instead stemmed from a desire to learn about the machines themselves.
I soon learned that any replicate plastic model taught me very very little about the machine. I was very disappointed to quickly get to a level of detail and find my way to additional learning blocked by the total lack of resolution in the plastic miniature models.
I get the same sense when reading the IPCC working group reports. A lot of modeling, a lot of impacts, but an exceedingly limited amount of detail and support for assumptions.
Clearly the IPCC is a political animal really uninterested in science or debate over the finer points of science. Its all about opinions of certain people. Probably they select members in a clubby way and then to deal with the occasional Polly Annish view point they vote it down as opposed to actually air the uncertainty.
The politicization of science bodies is an endemic problem in our society. Instead of providing information to policy makers they have been designed to produce policy recommendations to policy makers. Its a fine distinction but a very important one.
I see it as we have two choices. One is simply abandon any pretext of science being involved in policy decisions and just recognize them as what they really are; namely, either popular or special interest influenced decisions. This is something a bit of disclosure and honesty can go a long ways toward improvement over the current system of blatant dishonesty.
Or alternatively actually establish in law civil and criminal liability for scientists that participate in the political process in an official capacity to adhere to basic tenets of science. . . .standards to be established via bodies created by the science community working in tandem with representatives of the public interest.
The science community would likely benefit from this both financially and reputation wise. First it would spell the end of the "volunteer" scientist participation in political science bodies, a good thing as it would produce revenue for scientists who do participate. And secondly it would clear the political airwaves of total quackery coming from people that should know better.
Finally, it would ensure the need to employ an official science body before introducing science literature into the process. Somebody under the potential of penalty would have to analyze scientific literature and audit (sort of in a Steve McIntyre way as an example) while adhering to the standards of such review established by the professional bodies working in tandem with the public interest.
This would eventually bring consistency to science arguments used in the policy arena with modifications and changes to standards moving along based upon results achieved.
This sounds expensive but we are just getting to the real benefit of all this. We spend 100's of billions every year on scientific research. Such a process as outlined above would provide invaluable information as to where to best spend that money.
Rather than lavishing millions on some scientist that can't even keep track of his data, rendering his work useless over the long term or prematurely funding 350 impact modeling teams on a half-baked theory that only appears better baked because nobody is accountable for baking it right, essentially throwing the money down the drain, these research dollars would become far more productive.
That puts the costs in a perspective that makes sense and we could in large part avoid the problem of spending big dollars on toys that teach us nothing.
|
|