Ha! The climate computer models remain Garbage-In/Garbage Out information, and are essential only to perpetrate a hoax.
Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/01/2009 9:46:13 PM PDT by neverdem
“Wrong but useful” has a stench about like “Fake but Accurate”, but is really just a form of “Garbage In, Garbage Out”.
Someday climate models will be very useful.
That day hasn’t arrived yet.
The climate models predicted a specific fingerprint of CO2 induced warming that did not happen. Specifically that atmospheric warming at higher altitudes around the equator would indicate C02 is driving warming. Yet those increases in temperature in that area of the atmosphere have not been detected.
No climate model predicted the cooling trend of the last eight to ten years.
The simple fact is climate models to date have been a total failure at predicting the future with any certainty. To bet trillions of dollars and peoples well being on these failed models at this time is plain foolish.
Ah, so we should summarily presume "contrarian" sites are uniformly irrational?
An argument of such rationality it is unassailable...since it has not logic basis in the first place.
They are indeed useful as a means to a pay check for the “scientist” too lazy to pursue actual scientific methods.
Aslo didn’t see any mention of water vapor.
Any model that misses short term trends, say over a decade, cannot hit long term trends for the simple reason that the relevant errors propagate and compound. It’s a basic signal to noise issue.
“Wrong but Useful” is just another version of “Fake but Accurate.” In other words, garbage.
LOL, see the end of my post #6, which I typed before I saw yours...
NVIDIA's Fermi: Architected for Tesla, 3 Billion Transistors in 2010
Vitamin D Lack, Fructose Excess Linked To High Blood Pressure
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
It's an English source. It's mentioned as water vapour. I checked searching with the word water. I was searching for variables that were ignored.
Ha! The climate computer models remain Garbage-In/Garbage Out information, and are essential only to perpetrate a hoax.
Gavin Schmidt should be sent to prison for fraud, racketeering, and felony child abuse.
You’ll also note that he works at “NASA’S GODDARD INSTITUTE”, which means our good friend James Hansen is probably his boss.
Models which are developed with a political agenda, and are used for political purposes are neither accurate, nor useful. I am sorry to say, but I believe that a very large percentage of the published climate modeling results fall into that category.
Unfortunately “scientists” now share the esteem enjoyed by used car salesmen and politicians.
If the (original) climate models justified the warming hysteria, why have the modelers worked so diligently (and at such great cost) to continually revise their models to account for the errors that are brought to their attention (after each iteration)?
I'm reminded of an old Bugs Bunny cartoon:
Dramatic Personae:
White coated scientist: Elmer Fudd
Laboratory Rabbit: Bugs Bunny
Scenario:
Elmer Fudd brings Bugs a platter holding two carrots, one large and one small.
Bugs selects smaller carrot.
Scenario repeats (twice, as I remember)
Fudd: “Wabbit! Why do you keep picking smaller cawwat?)
Bugs: Because, if I pick the bigger one, you'll stop bwinging me more cawwats!)
And the lesson learned? If the scientists on the public dole (the billions we spend on climate research) admit the science doesn't support their scary predictions) we'll stop giving them carrots.
If their models were so good, why do they continually revise them? I thought (per Al Gore) that the science “was settled”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.