[w1andsodidwe]

Years ago, I was asked to provide data for a weather modeling/prognosticating program. My data was coming from a database of crop information. I asked what fields they thought would be useful. The answer was "Give us everything and we will figure out what is useful."

I extrapolated from that, that they would use whatever fields proved whatever they were trying to prove.

It was not a scientific endeavor at all, just playing with data until it yielded the proper result.

I have always scoffed at these computer models anyway. As a computer programmer, I can certainly give you whatever result you want. Does it prove anything? NO

[Smogger]

I have always scoffed at these computer models anyway. As a computer programmer, I can certainly give you whatever result you want. Does it prove anything?

That's always been my contention about the entire Global warming theory. You tell me what data you want to see and I can make it happen. This goes on all the time in "real world." Computer models say what I make them say. If the source isn't open no-one will be the wiser. After all I'm the "expert."

[Anti-Bubba182]

The bigger system they are trying to model the more iffy it all is EVEN if they try to do it honestly.

[fhayek]

I always understood that the models have been problematic from the start. If you ran the models forward from the early twentieth century, you didn’t get current empirical results. And if you ran it backwards, you didn’t line up with actual temperatures from a century ago. So the models are faulty and their observations have been fudged. Settled science?

[sergeantdave]

Well, I’ve never seen or heard of you before. It’s good to see you old FReeper guys stepping into the spotlight.

Welcome to FR!

:-)

(Just having fun with you...)