|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 19, 2011 12:39:25 GMT 1
From Roger Pielke Jr.: A fundamental problem with climate science in the public realm, as conventionally practiced by the IPCC, is the essential ink blot nature of its presentation. By “ink blot” I mean that there is literally nothing that could occur in the real world that would allow those who are skeptical of scientific claims to revise their views due to unfolding experience. That is to say, anything that occurs with respect to the climate on planet earth is “consistent with” projections made by the climate science community. Judith comments Returning to Pielke Jr’s inkblot issue, the inkblot appears to be associated primarily with how the [model] ensembles are interpreted and also the appropriate skill score to use for the problem under consideration. Without more attention to the issue of ensemble interpretation, climate model predictions will remain as inkblots, with individuals reading into them whatever they want to. judithcurry.com/2011/09/18/climate-models-as-ink-blots-2/#more-4713------ Too true, too true!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 19, 2011 13:13:49 GMT 1
Moley Sutter says
.....predictions are an important part of the use of models in Climatology. Therefore, the accuracy of predictions (model skill?) is important in Climatology. Model skill can only be tested by the passage of time which implies that any analysis must include a clear description of the time period involved. This condition makes virtually useless conclusions that fail to mention the time period involved or make the prediction for some period more than a few years in the future. All models are suspect until they are tested and testing has been done for almost no models of climate.
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Feb 5, 2012 21:02:17 GMT 1
Climate science: Lying emails. Deleted emails which prove them wrong. Ignoring all evidence (and even NASA) that proves them wrong. Picking and choosing years which suit their purpose. Ignoring the Sun and it's cycles. Lying to panic people so they can get more money from gullible and ignorant politicians. Talking of the weather at the end of the century when they can't get the weather right at the end of the month. etc, etc. Stupid Roger Pillock. digg.com/newsbar/topnews/when_the_earth_refuses_to_warm.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 6, 2012 10:50:21 GMT 1
I think you misinterpret what Roger is saying, skeptic. Here's what I think he means.
When everything observed is claimed to be "consistent" with climate alarmism (CAGW) there is nothing that can falsify the hypothesis and therefore nothing that can convince a sceptic that the alarmism is justified.
|
|
|
Post by skeptic on Feb 13, 2012 19:44:15 GMT 1
|
|