Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb
look, we can't even say if it is gonna rain tomorrow reliably, and I've known plenty of clueless scientists, and even more clueless non-scientists. There's a lot of over-ambitious models out there in a lot of disciplines that need a lot of work, no doubt. I don't think anyone here is saying how great the models are at predicting stuff, so lets move on from that, k v?
|
Nope. The models are the heart of AGW. And as long as Neil keeps on banging the AGW drum here, I'm going to keep on point out errors in them that would cause any other theory so supported to crash and burn.
You don't base a scientific theory on a computer model that doesn't even accurately represent the environment being modeled, adjust that computer model to account for things the model didn't predict, and still claim that the model predicts theory. That's not how science works.
BTW, here's yet another money quote
from that Newsweek article.
Quote:
|
Lindzen's contrarian attitude about global warming first stirred in 1988. In the heat of an atypically hot summer in the United States, Sen. Al Gore held hearings in which prominent scientists raised fears of rapid warming. The IPCC was formed to assess the need for action. "I wrote a piece for the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society saying that perhaps we should go easy on this because the case wasn't strong," Lindzen recalls. "I got people telling me that perhaps, as a Democrat, I shouldn't say that." In 1989 he spoke to an Earth Day gathering at Tufts University. "I was put down immediately," he says. "Scientists can have doubts, but environmentalists can't."
|
And another...
Quote:
|
This statement contains the crux of Lindzen's beef with the global-warming establishment. What is the relationship between nature, on the one hand, and the gigantic computer models that churn out climate predictions for 100 years hence? "In the scientific methodology," he says, "simulation is the weakest link. To say you've simulated something is to say very little." To appreciate why requires a brief foray into the world of climate science.
|
Oh, and Neil? You need to prove that the computer models do model the 19th century. Why don't you do some real digging, for once?
