Great post, thank you.
Dude, you’re doing it wrong. You could have tons of grant money if you just said what they said. Look at Al Gore, he’s laughing all the way to the bank!
Uncle George Soros says that you be lying!(/S)
Thanks, especially for making it readable to us non-scientists.
Thank you.
I validated a model by comparing its output from a set of inputs to the actual results. If they are different, the model is wrong, or at least there is a factor that is not accounted properly.
And that's where climate modeling has gone wrong: with one exception, every other model failed to predict the actual results in the past decade.
In my work, that was enough reason to toss the entire model and start over. But, rather than doing that, the climate modelers still insist the past decade was simply an aberration. Or, they claim the data needs "adjusting".
I'll also note that someone experimented with the original model that generated the "hockey stick" graph, kicking off the entire debate. He found that no matter what data set he used, he still got the "hockey stick". He even tried random data, and still got the hockey stick.
I am sorry, but you are not permitted to call yourself a “climate scientist” unless you bow to the religion of Global Warming.™
The scientific method is so passé. Science is now determined by consensus, with only those that have the correct opinion being counted to determine the consensus. If you do not have the correct opinion, then you are a heretic that should be burned at the state.
Unfortunately, burning at the stake would cause more Global Warming,™ so you must be shunned and demonized until re-educated. May Gaia have mercy on your heathen spirit.
I have never understood why Canadians, of all the people on the earth, would be concerned about a warming climate.
:: and at the same time, you will provide a more comfortable retirement for public servants and politicians ::
Statement of the day!
Please note my tagline...
I can explain it in one sentence:
Government grants for subjective research has corrupted scientific research.
Great read! Thanks for posting the truth and humor!
FWIW, here’s my take on climate science as a lowly physicist:
1.) Legitimate climate science. It uses physical measurements (ice cores, tree rings, etc. etc.) within the framework of experimental methods to study and explain climate changes in the *past*. Amazingly well done.
2.) Bogus climate science. It relies on arbitrary computer models to *predict the future* without a shred of actual physical measurement data (because that can only be gathered *in the future*). Bzzzz. Losers.
And that’s all there is to the science part. We can measure the past, but we cannot predict the future. The rest is *politics*.