No, no, no. You have it all wrong. The climate models*, upon which much has been spent, were never meant to be accurate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
Except, of course, when used as a basis for public policy and taxpayer funding. Then they’re the Holy Writ.
I once modeled Buckingham palace except everyone kept telling me that my model looked like an F4 Phantom. Now I am justified because according to science models don’t have to resemble reality! That’s why I shout – FREE AT LAST! FREE AT LAST! MY MODELS DON’T SUCK ‘CAUSE I AM FREE AT LAST!!!!!
A religious cult hiding behind a facade of fraudulent science.
That so many have embraced the faith, utterly unaware of its fraudulent nature, is – at least in part – a testimony to the utter failure of the public education system to produce free thinkers.
Which, I suppose, was always the point. You can’t rule people who can think for themselves.
Geez, so it is an “error” to think that models are designed to predict climate. There has been no increase in measured global temperature in over fifteen years.
Where the hell did Ontario’s energy policy come from? On what was it based?
Does Wynne know?
Perhaps the models are wrong because they did not take into consideration that Obama would start healing the planet ?
Here’s how it works:
2+1=4 error
2+3=4 error
But if you add 2+1 and 2+3 you get 8. Now add 4 plus 4 and you get eight.
Therefore, if you average out the two errors you get a correct answer.
And that’s the logic of the AGW fanatic fear mongers.
Needless to say, the IOP position is not the way science works.
I have seen plenty of discussions where there was a question about whether theory and observation were talking about the
same things. Always, there ensued lengthy discussions of applying theory to observation.
These climate goons are not scientists though they certainly are a stain on science.
Of course Wynne knows. And approves. She is one of them.
The reality that when you model BS the result may, or may not look like BS. How can fantasy ever be consistent. It is all nonsense.
Publish a valid scientific theory (falsifiable) not tripe gobbled together by baboons. All Scientific theory must be provable.
Give them enough rope.. Eh.
The models were never validated, never back dated to attempt to reproduce past reality.Never demonstrated any predictive skill at all..
But they are sure good enough for government, endless regulation, tax and imposed costs to mitigate a problem only “found ” by the computer models.
No difference than inventing a God,the good lord X, then justifying your assaults on other persons and property as orders from God X.
Such was the social respect for science the pseudo scientists got away with this, for a while..
However as this facade collapses, we come back to the fools and bandits infesting our governments.
This mass delusion was organized, coordinated, orchestrated and funded with our money.
Given the massive damage and costs now becoming evident, these fools and bandits need to be made examples of.
So no lying bandit will be so brave as to attempt to replicate this fraud anytime soon.
Remember — there were other rejections by reviewers too. They probably chose the most reasonable one to publish.
I doubt that we will ever see the others.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631477/Revealed-How-green-zealots-gagged-professor-dared-question-global-warming.html
So, in essence, the models now generate their own “data” which in turn are used to generate the model. That’s a tautology and therefore.unscientific.
The scientific methods of the warmista cult reminds me of Stalin’s Pavlovian science.
It has been a bad week all round for the warmsters. And, at a guess, the fun is just getting started.
During Climategate very few major writers got it. Now the blogs are feeding Mark Steyn, Andrew Bolt, David Rose, Christopher Booker and scores of others. And the major climate bloggers have become much smarter and cannier. They are holding their fire until they have all the facts. Plus they are no longer even slightly intimidated by the warmster propagandists.
It is still a long fight but now the objective is victory rather than merely avoiding defeat.
Ed, I’d be careful with that kind of talk. You may end up as a expert warmist contributor the next IPCC “Summary for Policymakers,” aka the complete fabrication and contradiction of the actual report.
BTW, whether “consistency” of models can truly be compared to observations (if that isn’t true then science no longer exists) doesn’t matter – this always has been about money, control and power. That’s why their solutions always involve taxation but rarely if ever involve actual reductions in emissions and God forbid, actual pollution.
Is the gig up? I think so for two reasons. One, there’s no escaping the fact that their tipping point the earth has a fever bleats are becoming less and less valid, despite the rationalization of unvalidated models. More importantly though, governments simply haven’t the financial wiggle room to get away with tilting at windmills and losing taxpayer votes.
The upcoming Ontario election is the canary in the coal mine on my second point; if Hudak wins and shuts down the province’s disastrous green programs, then the voter will have signaled their abandonment of guilt/green policies. If the Liberals somehow win again, then I guess the green watermelon derby will continue, where the poor are helped to be poorer with higher taxes and energy costs.