Comment 26563

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted September 13, 2008 at 19:28:57

Block43, I think you're missing the point a tiny bit. The point is that climate scientists do not have a good track record predicting anything, except maybe the weather a couple of days out.

Therefore, everything that flows from their mouths is irrelevant until they do.

No track record, no credibility.

Furthermore, it is not up to me to disprove their theories, rather they have the burden of providing strong, reproducible evidence confirming their hypothesis.

All we have so far are results of computer simulations that rely on incomplete data, and untested calculations. Nothing that can be modeled from start to finish, just open ended predictions.

That is why I point to the short term. If scientists could develop models that could reliably predict what the weather/ climate would be a year or two ahead of time, this would prove that their powers of prediction were indeed very strong.

So far they are either unwilling to do this, or they don't think it is necessary.

Either way, it is unfortunate, because without first developing a record of predictive success, there is no reason to take them seriously.

Those who chose to believe the recommendations of people with zero track record are not believers in science, they are believers in the messengers (figures of authority).

Don't feel bad about this though, because most people are designed to follow the herd, and most of you fit that mold perfectly.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds