Being an “anti-science” conservative (despite my inexplicable past awards in the physical sciences), I operate by a simple axiom:
The model is never the thing itself. A model is either more or less accurate - especially in comparison with a competing model. If a model were equatable with reality, then it would, in effect, be an ostensive definition of a reflexive syllogism: “I am that I am.”
I do not expect a model (such as Relativity) to have a perfect one-to-one correspondence to reality; I expect it to have a high degree of agreement, and to be reliably useful as a tool.
The so-called climate models in vogue with the communists are - to use a technical term - crap, tools fit only for global redistribution (which, hey, come to think of it,...).
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)