I am a scientist. A computer scientist, in fact, with a strong background in the natural sciences. I know the models are BS, never mind the data. The most notorious, if not the most egregious, perhaps, is Mann’s model which is the source of the infamous Hockey Stick Graph. Pretty much any dataset put into it will generate the same results. None of those results, however, match reality. That is just on the model side.
It turns out that the data selected for his (Mann’s) adventure in creative modeling is equally cooked, a sort of double-whammy cheat so that if you tested the data or the model independently with an honest model or honest data you’d still end up with his results or something close, and if you didn’t use either you could easily be discredited for allegedly doing what Mann et. al. actually DID do.
The first fact any honest scientist should admit is that it’s simply impossible to build an accurate model of any dynamic system as complex as climate. It’s impossible to even build an accurate model of a relatively simple dynamic system like the three body problem, which is orders of magnitude simpler than the climate. It has nothing to do with model design, or computing power; we simply don’t have sufficient understanding of the underlying mathematics to do anything of the sort.
Therefore, any model that they make is very likely to be “cooked”, because they know the models will produce garbage in any case, so the temptation to force the model to produce the kind of garbage that will get them funding is going to be very strong.
Thank you for that.
As someone with a background in the physical sciences, I have long operated by a simple and universal axiom:
The model is never the thing itself; any model can only be termed as being more or less accurate, never on being equatable with reality - never on being the literal truth.
A 1/72 scale model of a North American P-51D-25-NA is almost certainly less accurate than a 1/48 scale model of the same aircraft. To say that because the 1/48 is more accurate makes the 1/72 somehow false is itself false.
Both are equally, one hundred per cent, models. One is more accurate than the other; neither is equatable with an actual Mustang with its Packard-built Rolls-Royce Merlin roaring away.
I have never been caught up in the quest for the UFT for the reason of my personal axiom.
I do not sneer at a Neils Bohr atom just because SPDF, Orbital, Quantum, and anything else, came along to produce more sophisticated results. I am not going to use anything but Bohr to explain an atom to a little child.
Models are very useful if they are fairly accurate, and if their deficiencies are recognized.
The climate change models are very poor models that have been contrived for communist purposes of global redistribution of wealth. Their vast deficiencies are not recognized, and the dubious method for choosing the vaunted 97% of scientists is, in a word, crap.
Science is a tool, not a god. It is often abused by incompetence. Nowadays, it is deliberately abused by leftists.
Unfortunately, a majority of these kind of activist scientists are extreme leftists who subordinate all, including professional integrity, to political ends.
Trofim Lysenko has got nothing on what these frauds are doing today.