-----------------------
You obviously have no idea about what science is. In science we learn from our mistakes ... in regards to scientific models, anyone who thinks their model is perfect is NOT a scientists at all. Models are adaptive and need to be updated continually.
Models can only predict based on a confidence interval for hindcasting. They can not account for everything, only what is known and what can be forecasted (that is historical records available and data reliable enough to 'accurately' model past events).
Why just "global warming scientists"? Why not the "skeptics"? Why not all scientists?
Every scientist who makes a hypothesis or who questions another scientist's hypothesis risks being wrong. If scientists were penalized every time they were wrong, there would be no science.
Do we hold the weatherman responsible for his forecasts? NO. We just heed them. Sunny today with a 99.9% chance of rain by noon.
Only idiots do not take umbrellas. And that is only a regional forecast for that particular day. The weatherman can forecast that there will be cold temperatures come Christmas compared to summer. But he does not forecast 100 years down the road.
97% of them say Climate Change is caused by humans. All agree that Climate Change is real. It's some in the general public who refuse to accept it.
They are, it's what called peer review and prizes, like the NOBEL prize. Their predictions are reasonable, it's just you are blinded by your denial.
On the other hand, if they don't publish as per your claim in last question, what is the problem?
Jim Hansen predicted a Highway will be underwater in 2008 , it never happened . Maybe he meant 20,008
It's a hoax, so stop the funding already.
They are - however, that determination is made based on science by scientists and not on your personal ignorance and political faith.
For your lies? Is that really fair?
Like any other job in this world, the better you do, the further up the ladder you go and the more mistake you make, the further down you go. Should we have the same system fro global warming scientists where their predictions are made public, and if they're wrong, their funding gets cut?
