[Hacklehead]

“In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.”

As a young scientist I attended a seminar given by someone modelling a biocatalyic reaction. After the talk a co-worker I didn’t really know asked me what I thought. I told him that modelling such reactions wasn’t worth a bucket of spit and that it would just be easier to actually DO the experiment. He got a strange look on his face and walked away. Found out later he modeled biological reactions.

In any case good scientists have a motto, “when real data disagrees with your model, you need a new model”.

[Old Forester]

“good scientists have a motto, “when real data disagrees with your model, you need a new model””

Several years back I took a class in forest growth modeling. The instructor, a top modeler for the USFS, opened the class with the statement, “All models are wrong. Some are useful.” It’s the only thing I remember from the class....

[ApplegateRanch]

In any case good scientists have a motto, “when real data disagrees with your model, you need a new model”.

These people reverse that to needing new data (or to "correct" the data) to fit the model.

the Met’s principle research scientist John Mitchell told us: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”

Stands science on its head.

50 or so years ago, in Azimov's Foundation Trilogy, future "research scientists" of the [decadent] Empire were portrayed as never going into lab, 'because previous scientists had already done the work; it would be wasteful to repeat their experiments. Our job is to read their reports, weigh which side has the most evidence, then draw our conclusions to make the decisions...".

Nobady would have believed him had he placed such statements in such a near future.