Is there any reasonable mechanism to ensure the data being gathered/encoded currently is good quality and comprehensive enough to either prove or debunk the climate change cultism?
Would it be worthwhile to generate climate models with different assumptions based less on ideology and more on scientific principles? Producing a series of accurate predictions to contrast to the consistent inaccurate models of the cultists?
The idea of modelling the climate to show the likely rate of disasters is IMO impossible. The variables are simply too great in number and the accuracy and resolution is beyond the capability of man or machine. I think this has been demonstrated precisely by the IPCC, who have really only been trying to model the effect of CO2. One has. They haven’t even modelled the main greenhouse gas H2O.
As Scott Adams observes, prediction models are only as good as the assumptions being plugged into them which is why they should not be trusted as being scientific. Adams claims in his pre-cartoonist work, prediction models were only used to "sell" a perspective.
At this point, the climate change cultists are producing models and effectively selling their grift. So I'm wondered if it would be possible to model using the same or better data with different assumptions in order to produce better models.
Is there any reasonable mechanism to ensure the data being gathered/encoded currently is good quality and comprehensive enough to either prove or debunk the climate change cultism?
Would it be worthwhile to generate climate models with different assumptions based less on ideology and more on scientific principles? Producing a series of accurate predictions to contrast to the consistent inaccurate models of the cultists?
The idea of modelling the climate to show the likely rate of disasters is IMO impossible. The variables are simply too great in number and the accuracy and resolution is beyond the capability of man or machine. I think this has been demonstrated precisely by the IPCC, who have really only been trying to model the effect of CO2. One has. They haven’t even modelled the main greenhouse gas H2O.
As Scott Adams observes, prediction models are only as good as the assumptions being plugged into them which is why they should not be trusted as being scientific. Adams claims in his pre-cartoonist work, prediction models were only used to "sell" a perspective.
At this point, the climate change cultists are producing models and effectively selling their grift. So I'm wondered if it would be possible to model using the same or better data with different assumptions in order to produce better models.
!