Free Markets, Free People

Climate models are NOT “settled science”

At best they’re educated guesses.  And, as the actual climate continues to demonstrate when compared to the outcomes the models predict (and that’s all they do is come up with a prediction based on how the huge numbers of variables have been set up in the algorithm they use), they’re woefully wrong about climate change.  This comes under the category of “a picture is worth a thousand words” or in this case, a graph:

Screen-Shot-2014-09-07-at-9.22.08-PM.png,qresize=574,P2C451.pagespeed.ce._lwmHSxF3r

 

Not even close.

Now, who is the “denier”?

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

15 Responses to Climate models are NOT “settled science”

  • Well Mr. Smarty! Once we’ve massaged the data from those satellite and balloon data sets to more ACCURATELY match the models you’ll sing a different tune! Evil climate change denier! We have the power to make the data fit!
    Ha! Take THAT!
    .
    Science will triumph over your supposed real world observations!

  • They did themselves a disservice crying wolf.

    There is actually some mild warming and even a chance for dangerous climate change.

    But when you play these games you lose credibility.

    • At this point, are you really willing to trust their “real” data?
      I’m not.

    • They lost credibility when they didn’t reject the hypotheis when the data proved it wrong. That’s a very important part of the scientific method. Instead, politics, ideology and pecuniary interest kept it going. Also, most of these guys are aging baby boomers, reluctant to change and admit they were wrong so late in life. I know, it’s embarassing to admit you were wrong, but that’s part of science.

    • I had some dude that ten years ago was crying about the hockey stick which was a 1-year average. Recently turn around and say only a 10-year average is valid. 13-years is about the timeframe of our plateau or slight decline, less if the data keepers have massaged it. A 10-year average annihilates the plateau. It may increase less but its still left increasing.

      Complete amnesia about how he sold the yearly hockey stick 10 years ago

      Here, the obfuscation of choice is to only look at the ‘models’ that had the lowest increases and compare those to measured. They don’t look completely broken when they do that. Of course even those have too much detail of the measured data, so they also seem to use new data to correct the old prediction.

      Long story short.

      They have no shame and they have the megaphone.

  • Now, who is the “denier”?

    Eww…ewww….pick me, pick me…!!! I’ll be your huckleberry…!!!

  • 97% consensus is true … 97% of idiots believe that climate religion should be the law of the land, despite the separation of church and state.

  • Well, let’s see:

    CO2, a WEAK Greenhouse Gas, is 0.04% of the atmosphere (4.5% +/- emitted my humans). Compared with water VAPOR, it’s “forcing” is nothing. On the other hand, Mr. Sun is the driver of all live on the planet, and the ocean cycles are massive drivers of climate.

    From NO standpoint is CO2 a climate driver except in the demented minds of jackbooted thugs. END OF STORY.

  • Climate models are not part of any branch of science, they’re part of that branch of law that covers FRAUD.

  • I have stated this before and will repeat it now.  I have been working as an Environmental Analyst and Manager for over 25 years and use models in much of my work.  To use a model, it must be validated.  A “validate” model has gone through a stringent series of tests comparing its finding with real world examples and the tolerances for acceptance is extremely small.  If I were to use a model that was not validated, it would put the entire study in question and that question would not survive legal scrutiny.  Put simply, if sued I would lose.  And that loss would permanently destroy any credibility I have in the environmental world – in other words, I would be unemployable as an Environmental Analyst or Manager.  That is unless I work in the climate field – for not one single climate model, or combination of climate models, has been validated on any level.  I have even been challenged on this by individuals who ask “How do you validate a projection for the year 2100 until we get there.”  My response?  “It’s easy.  You use data from 1900 to 1950 and project the year 2000 and see what you get from the actual record of that year.”  The climate models they use today have the same record as that shown in the graph provided in the blog entry – crap!!!

    • Yep. Just as you do with any model that is supposed to be predictive. If it can’t “predict” the past, it is a gonner.

  • Also related, the bogus “97%” debunked yet again — it’s beating a dead horse at this point, I know, but so long as the drones keep echoing the talking points…

  • Climate change works once you understand it is blind faith in a religious ideology, not science.
    You are a heretic (denier) if you do not believe.
    I’ve read statements from full tenure professors demanding arrest, jail, forfeiture of property… even death, for “nonbelievers”.
    I can’t seem to remember any scientific principle in the last three hundred years that advocated capital punishment for failure to be logically swayed.
    Money + Power = Societal Control. The Climate Change religion fits this pattern well indeed.