That's not "prediction". Prediction is when you say something will happen and then it does, at least somewhat reliably. Better yet, if you have some skin in th

That's not "prediction". Prediction is when you say something will happen and then it does, at least somewhat reliably. Better yet, if you have some skin in the game, such as your scientific reputation. I.e. if you say there won't be any polar bears by 2020, their population better not quadruple to thwart your prognostications. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-popula... It's very easy to find a model that predicts this retrospectively. It's also completely worthless. Predicting the future is much harder. That's my main beef with climate science: not only do they do this kind of hand picking retroactively and claim they're able to "predict", they also sometimes go back and _tweak the input data_ to fit the models better, or make it up entirely where coverage is inadequate. This is not how science is done in any other field. This also doesn't feel like it's being treated as an existential threat would be treated, in terms of scientific rigor. I understand it's a very complex problem, sure, but that doesn't give you a license to take arbitrary liberties with scientific method or ground truth data.