Of course, referencing wattsupwiththat for anthropogenic global warming facts is like learning about special relativity from a republican CEO. More or less your going to get dis-information.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Chris Zell <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/newsbytes-climate-scientists-turn-skeptical-as-climate-predictions-fail/ > > Climate changes all the time. Hence, "denial" of climate change is > nonsense. > > Yes, graphs show an upward tilt in warming - however, the change is not > as catastrophic as many predicted. > > Even without the above, the lack of predictions a few years into the > future ( as Jed reported) is a failure in itself - or should cause the > field to be questioned as to its practical utility. > > I think the shoe should be on the other foot as to predictions. Let's see > what past climate predictions have proved most accurate over a reasonable > time scale that does not involve a huge percentage of a normal > lifespan. Referring to "all the work" and "long term climate change" > creates a strawman. As Keynes once said about economics, "in the long > term, we are all dead". > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Eric Walker [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:56 AM > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:global warming? > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Chris Zell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This doesn't mean that they need to be able to forecast tomorrow's >> lottery numbers ( in effect) but we should expect that they can create >> predictive graphs that follow emerging reality with a reasonable fit - and >> frankly, that's where the problem seems to be. >> > > Given your acquaintance with the field and familiarity with its complete > failure to predict anything, I am confident that you and others will be > able to draw to our attention to a persistent pattern of failed predictions > that demonstrate, beyond a handful of high-profile news-makers, a chronic > record of a science-that-is-not-a-science. I'm sure you can help us to > better understand the poor state of the field by characterizing the error > of climate science with some specificity -- for example, "no climate model > has had a record of predicting the three-year moving average temperature to > better than 60 percent (10 percent above random) when run over a period of > more than 10 years" (this is an example that I pulled out of thin air). To > demonstrate the failure of a field, obviously we will not be able to do > very much with a handful of prominent failures. We must show that the all > of the work of the field, taken together, is as good as rolling dice for > helping us to understand long term climate change. > > I would be very interested in some quantification of the failure of > climate science. > > Eric > >
