Gag order on the EPA

[David Horn]

(01-25-2017, 01:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 03:29 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:32 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Climate models - as opposed to empirical research on historical climate behavior - continue to show hockey sticks starting at whatever the current year is, and continue to be shown to be wrong the next year.

Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

Which climate models are you referencing?  None that I've seen in the last 30 years.

Green oriented people need to face the fact that the models are just that. Modeling such a chaotic system where we are still learning the actual boundary conditions and relevant tensors is no easy task. It is going to be a work in process for some time to come. Then someone who has an agenda as opposed to a desire for pure science (shout out to Michael Mann and his "Real Climate" crew) comes along and plugs in bristlecone pine hygrometer-maybe treemometer cores, or other questionable proxies, and exaggerated depictions may occur. This is not to say warming is not occurring and is not to say the warming is not due to AGW. It is to say, exaggeration does no one any good. I can understand certain adherent's desire to get the attention of the masses and increase the urgency of mitigation actions, but the way the Hockey Team did it is wrong.

The best way to validate a model is to run it backwards until it falls apart.  The early models had that problem, but the newer ones are actually pretty good.  What helps: several model running in parallel that more-or-less agree.  That's where we are today.

Even more to the point, some of the better models have been around long enough to be tested against real results.  They're very close.