Posted on 03/28/2014 2:50:59 AM PDT by markomalley
By their consistent refusal to acknowledge the accumulated facts of climate history, the mantle of “climate denier” has rightfully passed on to those who continue to promote misinformation and the unwarranted fear of manmade climate change. It is time that the fabricators of fear be so labeled.
These new-age denialists have elevated their computer models above the real world of factual observations. Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research set the standard for climate pseudo-science. “The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful,”: Dr. David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University. Indeed so, since the designer of the model can decide which “very useful” output is desired. The baking of a cake is a useful analogy. The cook decides which ingredients to include in the recipe, the quantity of each, the final shape and name of the cake. It could be named a lemon meringue, but if the lemon flavoring is omitted, it certainly will not be a valid lemon meringue.
Computer climate modeling has formed the basis for the continuing plethora of climate scare stories. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls them “scenarios,” but these computer fabrications are treated by the media, politicians, and general public more like predictions…
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Computer modelling is not a substitute for actual observation and measuring.
I can use the computer to design a PCR experiment from start to finish, and then simulate that experiment and see simulated results. While such a simulation run is very useful in the design of an experiment, it is NOT an actual experiment. There is no way it can substitute for extracting an actual biological sample and subjecting it to PCR analysis.
You can’t make any kind of scientific conclusion based on modelling alone.
According to the author (who is an IPCC expert reviewer), the only period showing evidence of man-made warming is from 1978-2000. That’s right, 22 years in all recorded history. None before, none after. All this fuss over a very small window of time. THEN he claims that the warming during that 22 year period is very questionable and conflicts with many data sources. Holy CARP! This could bring down the whole scam.
IF this "professor" has actually been awarded any form of college degree(s) in any scientific field, this statement alone is sufficient justification for stripping him of it/them.
Right there is an example of a lack of precision that in my mind disqualifies anything that next comes out of his mouth.
“I can use the computer to design a PCR experiment from start to finish, and then simulate that experiment and see simulated results.”
Why model a PCR experiment? It takes less time to run one and then you get real data.
When I started my real job many years ago some chem engineer from another department who gave a journal club on modeling a biological synthesis reaction. He came up to me later in the day and asked what I thought. I told him modeling was stupid and useless an explained why. Turned out his work focused on modeling such reactions. Awkward.
Did the U.S. have an extreme weather year in 2013? Tornadoes?
U.S. wildfires?
U.S. extreme heat in 2013?
U.S. hurricanes?
Those who oppose the AGW theory point out that the above disasters come and go, and there is no correlation with global temperature. So, next year, we could have high occurrences in all of the above, and it would not mean that we are seeing an impact from man made CO2.
If next year is high in all of these, the article at the top of this thread will be quoted again and again by the AGW crowd to show how fickle the "deniers" are. They use the data when it's convenient and deny it when it's not. All those who are trying to argue for sanity in the climate change debate should be careful not to set such future traps for themselves.
The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not only not right, it is not even wrong. With apologies to Wolfgang Pauli.
There are a couple of reasons. One is that, in the modeling, the software can look for DNA sequence homologies somewhere else in the genome, that I would not have been looking for while designing the primers (since the primers are specific to the sequence I want to amplify). Homologies can cause the formation of unwanted PCR products, complicating the experimental results. Another is so that I can see the sizes of the products--a quality control check of my design, basically. PCR can be an extremely tricky reaction to run, so I like to spend time vetting as much of the experimental design as possible before I spend time and money ordering primers, running optimization experiments, etc.
When I was a new and inexperienced graduate student, I couldn't get a PCR reaction to work for the life of me. By the time I graduated, I almost never had a PCR reaction fail.
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.