> Crowley and Hyde's paper may be interesting but it is just science
> fiction.
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
On Nov 22, 12:11 pm, Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The problem is that most scientists are not thinking carefully about
> > why the models fail. They are assuming that because the models
> > predict global warming and that global warming is happening then the
> > models are correct. But if you think carefully that does not follow.
>
> What?!? That is why scientists use models, in most cases. To learn
> from where they fail.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> Yes, someone has not been thinking carefully about this...
>
You've been doing too much thinking and not enough looking at the
facts.
Scientists don't use models to find out where they go wrong. They use
models because they can't use the real world. Of course they should
be looking at why the models fail, but in the case of the MSU and
radiosonde lapse rate results, they have spent twenty years trying to
prove the data wrong in order to show that their models are correct!
I agree with you. That is the way scientists should behave, by
checking their models against the facts. But Crowley and Hyde is an
excellent example of where the scientists are not behaving as you
advocate, and that is why their paper is not science.
Cheers, Alastair.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
