[Regal]

“Computer modelling is not evidence, no matter how many times you run the simulation.”
_____

Got us to the moon. And back.

[cuban leaf]

Got us to the moon. And back.

---

Yep. There is science and there is junk science. Those models based on the former are useful. :-D

[fuzzylogic]

Bad example. The physics of orbits/mass/thrust etc are well understood and can be *tested*, producing the ability to create very accurate computer models.

The environment requires a very different type of “science”. You cannot test all your theories, which is all they are. So you have “theories” in the computer models but they’re not proven via global experiments (as you can’t change the various variables of the earth). The computer models they have don’t even take into account variables like the sun. They overestimate the effects of CO2, ignore others.

If the science is “done” then why is there more than 1 model? Why do the current models not match reality? ...because they don’t reflect reality. I wonder how many of them would bet their lives on their model? ...those that went into space had that level of certainty.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Got us to the moon. And back” <<

.
No, it didn’t!

Solid established knowledge of physics and chemistry is what got us there and back!

[Starstruck]

I can tell by your posts how easy it is for the AGW crowd to fool fools.

[Lakeshark]

Those who modeled the moon expedition wanted truth in order to make the mission successful. It appears that those who are modeling AGW are less interested in truth and far more interested in the grants given to politically correct climatologists. You ought to know the difference, considering the AGW models have been close to 90% wrong in their predictions. Contemplate that record for a while......