I write computer software for a living.
I laugh my ass off when they say “computer models show...” because I can program computer models to show you anything you want them to show you.
This is not a hardware simulation, where you know the tolerances of materials to thousandths of in inch, this is data bases on TREE RINGS and ICE CORES.
You cannot measure 0.6 degree of temperature chance when your measuring device is inaccurate by plus or minus 5 or 10 degrees.
Thanks.
The other factor that never gets mentioned is that we DO NOT UNDERSTAND how a lot of these factors interact with each other. To be able to input data into the computer model, the authors are therefore compelled to take a SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) at dozens to hundreds of factors.
They then input these guesstimates and the computer runs the algorythms with great rigor. What comes out the other end is a rigorously massaged guess, exactly what went in, except more impressive to numbskulls.
I agree with your humor, BTW. I’m not a computer scientist, but I have had a lot of experience working with computer estimating systems for insurance repairs.
Customers and many adjusters take the results and look at them as having been generated by computer, and therefore being “accurate” in some cosmic sense. Yet I, of course, can crank out any bottom line I choose simply by adjusting the parameters of what I input.
I make a fair amount of money on the side, BTW, by analyzing fraudulent estimates for insurers and showing exactly where and how the estimator cheated.
“You cannot measure 0.6 degree of temperature chance when your measuring device is inaccurate by plus or minus 5 or 10 degrees.”
Sure you can! It’s called imagination! :-).
Early in my career, our design team once got an EEPROM cell model from a rather well known semiconductor company. It had an insane number of simulation parameters. It turned out that this particular EEPROM cell magically created voltage! I mean, you could literally use it as a voltage source in a simulation :-).
After a day of fighting with this company (they were in denial at first), they found their error ... it was fixed and the simulations made sense :-). Sadly, they didn’t discover some alternative power source.
Of course, in academia, the ‘cells’ the comprise a simulation model of global climate are 100% perfect. They’d never make a single mistake in a cell since everyone is perfect in academia in my experience.
I’m sure all of their models have been rigorously verified and the software that simulates the climate of an entire planet, even a small one like Earth, is, without question, 100% perfect since those people are complete geniuses.
Question those models and the nerdy guys wearing glasses will flash their SS badges, go full fascist, and attempt to belittle you into believing in their religion or kill you.
Those people are sooooooooooo much smarter than us peons. Don’t dare question them. Bloody dogooders those climate scientists at the UN ... bloody dogooders they are indeed.
We know for certain that the rings of modern trees do not correlate well with temperature, however, we are expected to believe that the rings of ancient trees DO correlate well with temperature. We are also expected to be OK with the Warmists excluding any tree ring data that does not show warming. Yes they actually have done that.