A climate model, whatever the math or data, I would expect to be able to make predictions of future weather/temperatures etc. and then see those predictions come true with some reasonable accuracy exceeding random guesses.
If I were to build one, I would start the model in the past to see if it could accurately predict what we already know to have occurred. Start the model hundreds or even thousands of years in the past and run it forward. Match that against already known events. If it cannot do that with a high degree of accuracy it should be discarded and a new method tried. If it can't predict what we already know happened, strong hurricane seasons, temperatures, ice cap size, etc. then there can't be any possible confidence that it could predict events in the future and would fall into the realm of charlatans throwing darts hoping for that one hit to hang their hat on.
If a model is developed that can correctly play backwards and forwards, then you can see what it can do with future events. Over the course of the next ten years can it accurately predict climate events? Clearly whatever Al Gore and company used was completely and absolutely wrong. nothing they were predicting happened. Their work, their traveling side show, should have already been discarded long ago so that science could move on and try to come up with something that actually works rather than spinning their wheels trying to fit a failed theory into the measured data.
Frankly this level of dishonesty is mind-boggling. But then again so is the amount of money at stake.
A climate model, whatever the math or data, I would expect to be able to make predictions of future weather/temperatures etc. and then see those predictions come true with some reasonable accuracy exceeding random guesses.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to build one, I would start the model in the past to see if it could accurately predict what we already know to have occurred. Start the model hundreds or even thousands of years in the past and run it forward. Match that against already known events. If it cannot do that with a high degree of accuracy it should be discarded and a new method tried. If it can't predict what we already know happened, strong hurricane seasons, temperatures, ice cap size, etc. then there can't be any possible confidence that it could predict events in the future and would fall into the realm of charlatans throwing darts hoping for that one hit to hang their hat on.
If a model is developed that can correctly play backwards and forwards, then you can see what it can do with future events. Over the course of the next ten years can it accurately predict climate events? Clearly whatever Al Gore and company used was completely and absolutely wrong. nothing they were predicting happened. Their work, their traveling side show, should have already been discarded long ago so that science could move on and try to come up with something that actually works rather than spinning their wheels trying to fit a failed theory into the measured data.
Frankly this level of dishonesty is mind-boggling. But then again so is the amount of money at stake.