It should be stated that ANY model is an abstraction of reality. It a model had all the components of reality, it would then be real. Keep that in mind about any model. It’s not science. It is conjecture that can only be proven by events occurring in the future. It’s not classical science where you begin with a hypothesis, develop experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis. When you are on to something, peers try to replicate the experiment and poke holes in the hypothesis. Models can only be peer reviewed by running the same data through the same program. It’s sort of like running fraudulent election ballots thru fraudulent vote counting machines. Kinda funny that all so-called climate change scientists are Democrats and Commies. They cannot win without cheating.
Right. To do actual science you’d require another earth to experiment on. Hypothesize, experiment, record results, and refine the hypothesis, rinse, repeat.
Without being able to actually experiment on an actual earth-like planet this ‘science’ is nothing more than ‘models’. Of which none have been accurate. If the ‘science is settled’ why are there dozens of models? Why don’t they agree?
If the input data is wrong or incomplete, and the model is flawed, you get garbage out. My guess is that both are wrong.
I’ve also read that 50% of the ‘science’ in journals ends up being wrong. So I apply that to 50% of what I hear regarding real science...then apply another 50% to ‘climate science’. Then we’re probably getting somewhere.