Posted on 12/14/2018 6:38:56 AM PST by LumberJack53213
“Science” is not a set of facts but a process or method that sets out a way for us to discover information and which attempts to determine the level of confidence we might have in that information. In the method, a “claim” or “hypothesis” is stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility. If the claim fails a test, the claim is rejected or modified then tested again. When the “scientific method” is applied to the output from climate models of the IPCC AR5, specifically the bulk atmospheric temperature trends since 1979 (a key variable with a strong and obvious theoretical response to increasing GHGs in this period), I demonstrate that the consensus of the models fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin. As such, the average of the models is considered to be untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or for related policy decisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at heartland.org ...
Also, if one is going to use a model, said model must be validated. None of these hoax models are validated, and therefore of no possible value.
Most people are unaware of the fact that Galileo’s “crime” was stating unproven theories as scientific fact.
Or that his “punishment” was confinement to a luxury apartment with all his equipment so he could continue his work.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
bkmk
The real crime here isn’t that the Climate Change folks aren’t using the scientific method. The real crime is that, when it comes to Climate Change, no one is allowed to use the scientific method.
You want to use the scientific method to challenge, say, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity? Well, that’s bold. Go right ahead and try.
But suppose you want to use the scientific method to challenge Climate Change. What, are you crazy? You WILL be shouted down. You WILL be denounced in the media. You WILL become an unperson in the scientific community.
And that’s the real crime. The climate Change folks are pushing science back to the Dark Ages.
but for leftards climate change is a useful myth that furthers their agenda of statism and socialism, so it will not be abandoned by them.
“The left appears to be getting louder”
Climate change is everything to the left. It is the key to control, power and unlimited funding. To the left generally and the rats specifically it is the golden ticket.
Of course its still used!
Using the scientific method, you program the computer with sufficient algorithms to prove your conclusions.
Check it out! Even I can understand it. (Ignoring some of the scientific lingo).
Understandable text and charts/graphs.
One conclusion/observation... (science vs JUNK science)
“The scientific conclusion here, if one follows the scientific method, is that the average model trend fails to represent the actual trend of the past 38 years by a highly significant amount.”
[In other words, computer models vs actual real life MEASUREMENTS)]
“As a result, applying the traditional scientific method, one would accept this failure and not promote the model trends as something truthful about the recent past or the
future.
Rather, the scientist would return to the project and seek to understand why the failure occurred. The most obvious answer is that the models are simply too sensitive to
the extra GHGs that are being added to both the model and the real world.”
My conclusion .... garbage in, garbage out.
From the report...
“In trying to determine the climate sensitivity, which is how sensitive the global temperature is relative to increases in GHGs, the IPCC authors chose not to give a best estimate. [A high climate sensitivity is a foundational component of the last Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon.]
The reason? … climate models were showing about twice the sensitivity to GHGs than calculations based on real, empirical data. I would encourage this committee, and our government in general, to consider empirical data, not climate model output, when dealing with environmental regulations.”
REAL data vs computer models. I’ll go with REAL, EMPIRICAL data every time. (see tag line)
“...challenge, say, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity...”
That’s the problem with us idiots who “believe” in science; we just don’t realize that Capt Kirk goes faster than light all the time.
Not only do the climate models fail to accurately predict, but, if they are looked at closely, they fail to retrodict the values that are prior to their data points.
They are inaccurate going both directions in time, so the models are only of value to people who can profit from them.
The data itself is not validated either.
It is actually much worse than this. Not only are their theories incorrect, but they do not even understand the metrics involved. The average temperature is more or less meaningless in a dynamic feedback system such as the climate. For example, yesterday in West Texas we experienced rain, sleet and snow all at the same time. At 39 degrees F.
We have been in a Progressive Dark Age for a few years now. Some of us, much longer. Just waiting for that bright light.
These are some very sensible proposals. Unfortunately, Congress, especially now with the Dems in control of the House, will never pass any of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.