Gee, I’m old enough to remember when the future held endless drought.
Love the phrase "we found" with regard to a climate prediction, as though it's an empirical result, and not just another crap model output. https://t.co/5Km29m5lyN
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) July 16, 2017
My standard challenge to the climate modelers is that they take their best model, calibrate it on the data from, say, 1900 to 1970, then let it predict from 1971 until today, and seen how close it gets. If you can do that and closely replicate the observations over the last 45+ years, I’ll look on the predictions for the next 40+ without laughter. If not, go back to work; you’re not doing science yet.
I say this as one whose livelihood depends on accurate modeling of complex physical phenomena; I do this every day.
The problem is that they’ve already fit the models on data through the present. It’s only the future that they can’t overfit.
Great points, C. I like what Popper said about falsifiability, in that any hypothesis that could not be falsified was non-scientific. Even after decades of vigorous media coverage on anthropomorphic global warming, there are no voices saying “here is our model, here is our data. If X does not occur within this timeframe given these inputs, our theory is wrong.” That is my primary objection to the entire subject and why I put quotes around their “science” on this subject. I believe Mann, for example, is refusing to share his model and his data, claiming these are his own intellectual property, even though as a taxpayer I helped pay for that research. But I confess that I don’t know enough about the contracts between university researchers and government grants to know whether or not IP claims can be made in those circumstances.
Climate
ChangeCrime.