4 ms·
This doesn't even come close to conclusive proof: "Now, a newly updated data-set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four new climate models show
by pragmatic 18y ago
This doesn't even come close to conclusive proof:
"Now, a newly updated data-set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four new climate models show that temperature rises in both polar regions are not consistent with natural climate variability alone and are directly attributable to human influence."
You've updated your excel spreadsheet and your python program and that's conclusive proof?
Science is only science if it can be tested and proven false. Computer models fall short.
You wonder why people don't believe this theory? If this is conclusive proof what would I need to do to convince you of the tooth fairy's existence?
- fallentimes 18y agoModels eh? Isn't that what those banks relied on...
- Dilpil 18y agoElement b is a member of set X. Element b has property q. Therefore all members of set X have property q? Really?
- randallsquared 18y agoWell, if property q is important enough, it's wise to adjust expected outcome on it to some degree even if you don't yet know if the rest of set X has that property.
- fallentimes 18y agoWas just a joke - relax. Really.
- Anon84 18y agoScience is only science if it can be tested and proven false. Computer models fall short. And yet, you can prove that the predictions made by a computer model are (or aren't) false.
- kingkongrevenge 18y agoI don't know anything about these particular models, but the models that have been used to raise the global warming alarm over the last 10 years have consistently failed to predict outcomes. Upper atmosphere temperatures in particular, which are key to the premise of the models.