The Speculist

I can't believe the global warming industry is still using that hockey stick chart. That chart has been shown to be false by dozens of scientists.

So the prediction will occur with the added benefit that we will get some much needed nuclear power plants.

A planetary environment is probably the archetype example of a Chaotic System, by definition one who's parameters and contributors cannot be identified and defined. Further complicating things, Earth's environment is also apparently a self-correcting system who's capabilities in that regard are also chaotic in symbiotic function.

No surprise I'm sure, prediction is a big part of strategic science and one of the precepts therein is that a strategy that fails critical analysis (which the global warming prediction does to date) yet continues to be pursued must be regarded as a deception tactic for some other strategic objective. It isn't really necessary to identify what that objective is to arrive at the conclusion that the stated prediction/objective must be an inherent falsehood. That doesn't automatically dismiss the prediction, but it does add an unnecessry layer of obfuscation to an otherwise straightforward proposition which does speak to the reliability of the theory's component structure.

Very few critics of the global warming theory make this analytic determination and, obviously, none of the theory's proponents do. The strategy behind debate and persuasion requires that an argument be structured with the greatest number of supporting implied assumptions as possible which, if it needs to be said here, is the anti-thesis of critical analysis. So, do you want to have a debate (the realm of political science) or do you want to analyse the environment as best we are able (the realm of climatic science)? Given the amount of money and status at stake here, I suggest that is the critical question to be answered first.

Your prediction as written, Phil, appears to correctly state future events, but it lgnores the reasons why. No offense, but predicting that there will continue to be lotto winners isn't quite specific enough to warrant "prediction" qualification and your present example is almost that generic. An specific prediction must address the classic "six questions" familiar to any mystery novel reader; who, what, when, where, why and how? The greater the degree of specificity the greater the predictive value, of course, but some attention must be paid to each question for a statement of belief to have actual predictive qualities.

You did ask. Sort of. :)

Will --

None taken. It's not my prediction, just one that I thought was to the point. One of the challenges of the scenario website is to try to pack in as vivid a future as possible in 50 words or less. The site exists for entertainment and to initiate discussion. I believe that, with those ends in mind, your rather rigid criteria for a what a prediction must include would be needlessly restrictive.

(I'm also not sure I would agree with them for broader applications. A statement can have "predictive qualities" while meeting only one or two of your criteria. The scenario "A human being will land on Mars" is a prediction. The statement that "The first human being to set foot on Mars will be a Japanese woman who will arrive via solar sail in the year 2037" is a much more specific prediction. If I tell why she went or how she came to be first, I'm drawing a more detailed picture. But a line drawing can also convey useful information.)

I'm not sure what to make of this:

a strategy that fails critical analysis (which the global warming prediction does to date) yet continues to be pursued must be regarded as a deception tactic for some other strategic objective.

Um, fails whose critical analysis? Seems to me that the hockey-stickers honestly believe they're on to something. A mistake driven by prejudices and assumptions -- if that is in fact what's going on -- seems far more likely to me than some vast conspiracy to deceive.

Choas theory talk is misplaced.

You can easily see trends in the cooling of a coffee cup without being able to predict the exact temperature 10 seconds from now.

I think that opposition the claims of those predicting global warming is a bit of wasted battle.

Even if it is occuring, I maintain that the solution is technological and market based. Those calling for Kyoto style treaties would be wrong even if the worst case scenerios were correct.

You can't have the debate like follows:
A- Bad things will happen, we need program X.
B- Those things won't happen!
A- Look, here is some evidence. Since there were no objections to program X, let's do it.

Research on Solar. Low regulation on Wind. No subsidies for petroleum. Research on batteries. Research on fusion.

These things make sense even if global warming ISN'T happening.

Phil, The perils of a comment written in haste. Let's see if I can do better this morning.

"Critical analysis" is the closest translation into modern English of the concept of strategic self-analysis Sun Tzu prescribed in The Art of War. It emphasises objective honesty and a fairly rigid standard of comparison. It's purpose is to provide you with a realistic measure of your own strategic capabilities and those of a competitor, the latter measure being derived from mostly indirect sources. Qualifying information is a big part of strategic analysis since such information is what you base your own strategic decisions on in turn. The closer a prediction is to the ideal, the more predictive quality it has. Your example of "A human being will land on Mars" is a good example of this process. It supplies 50% of the required information, who, what and where. An honest prediction to be sure, but not enough upon which to base a decision of when and how much money to spend fulfilling the prediction either. By my own standard (well, Sun Tzu's actually) a re-statement of your sample prediction might be, "A human expedition of six members will use currently developed rocketry technology to journey to Mars, establish a scientific research station and return safely to Earth during the next perigee (apogee?) period subsequent to 2010". 34 words that make essentially the same prediction, but with (barely) enough specificity to base a decision upon to support or reject the proposition. [As written, I would reject it without the addition of some very compelling reason to undertake such a short-sighted venture.]

As to "the hockeystickers", we agree that they honestly believe they're on to something, but I suggest that the available evidence points to that something being other than the advancement of scientific understanding of our planet's environment. And, thus, an act of deception. As Jake initially pointed out, the methodology used to create the sample chart has been shown to be badly flawed, to the point that insertion of virtually any positive numbers will result in a similar outcome. In other words, the chart itself is a proven deception; those who continue to use it are themselves being deceptive. To what end remains an open question perhaps, but a deceptive practice is legitimate cause for suspicion of those practitioners. No vast conspiracy necessary; each could have a different strategy to advance while still relying on the known deception of the disproven chart. All the good will on Earth won't alter an erroneous conclusion drawn from a flawed premise and continued reliance upon a known deception like the sample chart calls that good will into serious question. A mistake certainly, but not on my part, I think, or others who question the motives and objectives of those advocating action by such dishonest tactics.

And ivankirigan, strategic science is NOT chaos theory. I do concur with your research priorities though.