"The science is settled."
"The science is settled."
“This public scrutiny has, I think, helped us to up our game in all these areas and be better about being transparent.”
There is no Science of the Climate yet developed.
The weather guys are getting pretty good at looking out 10 days though.
btt
At last week’s meeting, Andrea Dutton, a scientist at the University of Florida who studies the Earth’s past climates, noted a silver lining to the hostile attention the field has received from folks who deny the reality of human-driven climate change:
...
Climate is driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit and the positions of the continents. If humans have an effect on climate it’s behind the other two.
:: because if the model works for the future, then it should work for the past too ::
To quote Thomas Dolby: “Science!”
I deny it.
“And they run past climate data on computer models built to predict the planet’s future - because if the model works for the future, then it should work for the past too”
The sentence is intentionally distorted. It should say that the model should reflect the past so that results concerning the future can have confidence.
Any time simulation should be able to show that (within acceptable bounds), especially a CFD run that is attempting to model stochastic events.
But the cop out will be that “we don’t have data that goes that far back with sufficient resolution” and then we’re supposed to take it on faith, or some crap statistical model that just regurgitates tree ring data sans underlying rationale.
This is an interesting piece about the causes of seal-level rise.
Knowing that your research will be thoroughly gone over by critics will force you to do better science.