I enjoy watching pinheads try to prove their theories and defend their position by pounding the table and pointing to their big computers.
Sometimes uncertainty is unavoidable, but some scientists detest uncertainty. Consensus science is their answer to the obvious problems they have with predicting the future.
Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School gave a lecture on predictive models at a climate conference that I thought was most significant for pointing out that knowing the past and what made things happen is the best basis for predicting the future–no kidding. I kinda knew that before Scott rolled out his 120 or more elements that make for good predictive models.
Here’s a Viv Forbes, who writes on climate frequently.
Models are not better because of the size of the computer used, they are better if they are based on good principles of prediction. The Met Office of the UK is an excellent example of delusional elitists pointing to their big computer and announcing they will be able to predict climate a century out.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/modelling_madness_.html
Their forecast would have come true, were it not for the climate disruption and instability caused by CO2. See? You can find proof of CACC everywhere, if you look hard and creatively.
I played 18 holes of golf today at Aiken Golf Club. Severe storms have been predicted for a week. They were still predicted THIS MORNING! It was a perfect afternoon. Cloudy, breezy, low 80s. They missed the forecast 6 hours out!
G I G O
Trying to model all of the variables (some of which we don’t know and many of which we don’t under stand the relationship betwen) for a chaotic coupled non-linear system is the height of arrogance and folly.
With todays technology any weather forcast beyond 72hrs is a guess and beyond 5 days is a wild guess … and they’re going to predict the climate for 100 years???