Climate scientist en route to conference.
Eric Worrall demonstrates the Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose unfalsifiable character of “climate change” modelling.
If the temperature goes up, this is just what the models predicted – watch out because … …soon it will get a lot worse. link
If the temperature goes down, the deep ocean is swallowing the heat – even though the heat can’t be measured, we know it must be there, because that is what the climate models tell us. Global warming prevails! link
If the global temperature crashes, its because global warming induced melting of arctic ice shut down the ocean currents. link
——————-
If the snow disappears, this is just as models predicted – snowfall is a thing of the past. link
If there is an unusually heavy snowfall, this is just as models predicted – global warming is increasing the moisture content of the atmosphere, which results in increased snow cover. link
——————-
If there is a drought, that is because of global warming. link
Except of course, when global warming causes heavy rainfall. link
——————-
No matter what the observation, no matter how the world changes, we can never falsify alarmist climate theories. Any possible change, any possible observation, can always be explained by anthropogenic global warming. link
GoneWithTheWind
Many years ago Icreated computer models for clients. My first question was usually what do you want the results to be? In fact computer models are all biased. You cannot help it anymore then you could not write a story about yourself without your views being part of the story. I always put in backdoors and data sensitive variables so I could adjust the output without going into the code. I would also write computer games (this goes back before graphical interfaces when only character output was practical) and again always put in the ability to “beat the system”. In modern global warming computer models they are also designed with the ability to “beat the system” in that no matter what the data you feed in the model predicts increased warming. When global warming models are used to predict the present weather/climate they always fail and over predict warming. The models can indeed be falsified but first it must be attempted and second it must be reported honestly. I could add a third proviso that the popular medai outlets would have to be honest in their reporting.
T. Shaw
Do you know how hookers differ from liberals? When you run out of money, hookers stop fucking you.
It’s not about climate. It’s about ideology, power and riches (for themselves).
Even if they were correct, they don’t have a viable energy alternative. So, the cure – more misery for poor people – is worse than the problem.
Steve Gregg
The way the scientific model works, you take a conjecture (Humans are boiling the globe) and make it into a testable hypothesis. If experiments find it true, it becomes a theory. If experiments find it overwhelmingly true, it becomes a law.
To make a testable hypothesis, you must identify falsifiable propositions, ie things you can test to prove something is true or false. Einstein gave four falsifiable propositions for his theory of relativity, including light would have a red shift and light would bend around the Sun. Both proven true later.
What are the falsifiable propositions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)? I don’t know of any. Everything seems to prove AGW, nothing disproves it.
Had the AGW movement used the scientific method to prove its conjecture, those falsifiable propositions would be on the tips of their tonques and the experimental results proving them would be public knowledge. There are none. AGW is not science, but cargo cult science, a faith. The AGW crowd is trying to leapfrog their conjecture to law without dallying in any of the intervening steps required by the scientific method, which they claim proves their case.
Simply put, if you can’t name what proves AGW false, you are not promoting science, but a religion.
Please Leave a Comment!