Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
Here is where the Climate Scientists, including James Hansen, know they are bogus.
As far as the money:
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
The accuracy of the past US record is so poor that after 1999, they made "corrections" to the US temp data to the tune of 0.5 degrees for many of the earlier years covered.
This is the US past temperature record. Arguably the most well-kept temp record over such a large area. If the past record of the most accurately kept records needed a 0.5 degree correction (a correction that changed no warming to statistically significant warming) then what level of confidence can be placed upon the record from teh sea, or from Russia, Africa, South America??? Can we actually place enough confidence to really be talking about the 0.8 degree change we may have seen over the last 100 years? Honestly, how much faith do you put in temp records from Russia or Africa in 1910?
Then you move to forecasting. They cannot accurately predict 3 months out for the CONUS, yet we are to believe that they can predict 100 years in the future for the entirety of the world?
And lets not forget their models having exponential temp increases. They have models riddled with positive feedbacks that create unstable models that shoot off to infinity. Do you believe the earth to be unstable??? Would life have evolved if the earth had such an unstable climate that a 0.01% change in the atmosphere could lead to runaway global warming?
Fact is that this si nothing new. This is not the first time that scientists have claimed far more certainty than is warranted by the data. This example, just happens to be tied into hundred of billions of dollars of gov't spending. So does the addition of political motivation to a field of science generally make that field more or less biased?
Yes, I think the models tell us everything we need to know.
Making a climate model is apparently easy. Professor Myles Allen gave a copy of an Excel-based one to the UK's Climate Change Committee. Making one that forecasts the future seems to be next to impossible. In fact, predicting the past is also problematic.
Making dozens of models that all have fudge factors of different levels of aerosols so that they get close to reality is verging on guesswork. IMHO.
Leaving out important factors is also an issue. The pause seems to be due to something left out of the models. Then there are clouds. Does it feel cooler if a cloud interposes itself between you and the sun? The models will catch up one day. Do we live on a flat earth? The models do.
I blame the modern computer game generation. They sit in their bedrooms playing Call of Duty thinking they are God's gift to the military and that war is easy. People more grounded in reality know that not to be the case. The climate models seem to have the same ethos - except that many were started years ago and exist in FORTRAN that has been successively modded and patched every month since.
Just as scientists investigate the physical world, computer boffins have studied computer modelling. The number of artifacts and patterns that a computer calculation can introduce, all by itself, is quite interesting. I assume that climatologists know about this as Omni Science seems to be a minor part of Climate Science :)
Ed Markey want policies based on those things .
The models miss out on the laws of probabilitys and the chaos factor .
Garbage in Garbage out
Yes.
The laughably failed climate models tell us that our illustrious Alamists climate scientists know very little about the climate --- their track record is abysmal.
But they are pretty sure if taxpayers continue to lavishly fund them for another 30 years that they will get it right --- maybe.
It seems that climate science is the perfect discipline for failures, the more you fail the more money you get.
-----------------------
They base energy policies on those stupid things, they would be much better off tossing a coin, or asking a model and doing the opposite.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-18/the-official-forecast-of-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-never-saw-this-winter-coming?campaign_id=yhoo
" ... “Not one of our better forecasts,” admits Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director. The center grades itself on what it calls the Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfection) to -50 (monkeys throwing darts would have done better). October’s forecast for the three-month period of November through January came in at -22. Truth be told, the September prediction for October-December was slightly worse, at -23. ... "
You'd think that climate scientists would know what they are talking about when it comes to "knowing" through climate modeling and how much money we "give" them. LOL!
