Speechless, I am... The warmist community has been getting a lot of flack because their computer models (which they derive all their dire predictions from) aren't matching the observed reality. For example, about 10 years ago the IPCC published the results of dozens of computer models. Those models predicted varying degrees of global warming 10 years (and more) into the then-future, which is right now. That predicted global warming hasn't occurred. This is very embarrassing for those computer models, and for most people (including most scientists) it is strong evidence that those models are seriously flawed – that is, they are pretty much useless for predicting global warming. It also is pretty strong evidence that the dire predictions of the warmists are based on ... not much of anything.
But now one publisher of environmental research papers (including many climatology papers) takes a position that eliminates the issue: they say that to expect the models to be consistent with observed reality is an error. That's a bit like saying that it is an error to expect the actual weather to match the weather forecast. If we accepted that notion, then no matter what result the models predicted, and no matter how much they deviated from reality, we should accept them as “truth” on some level.
Orwell has entered the science building.
I really don't know what to say about this, other than my jaw is sore from where it dropped and hit the table. Steve McIntyre has a bit more...
No comments:
Post a Comment