Tweet
Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
View Post
If they can attempt to gain credence by repetition why is tit for tat wrong?
I mean c'mon; the "consensus" among "scientists" and especially "journalists" is that we should cower in fear using a moving target standard of "proof" as justification.
In 2005 they PREDICTED a nasty 2006 hurricane season, and it was a total freakin' BUST!! Why? Because of a mild El Nino they say.
So, why didn't oh-so-mighty their models predict the damned El Nino? If they cannot do that, they certainly cannot predict global climate 100 years from now.
Better question: if they plug in all the numbers for 2006 and run the model backwards do you get anything that looks even a bit like 2005, 1955, 1905 or 1855? If not go back to your lab & shut up until it does.
Lots of hurricanes: GW
No hurricanes: GW
Floods: GW
Droughts: GW
El Niño: GW
No El Niño: GW
Famine: GW
Obesity: GW
Plagues: GW
Locusts: GW
Deaths of first born: GW
Catsup won't come out: GW
Cold weather: GW
Hot weather: GW
Sunny days: GW
Cloudy days: GW
Crabgrass: GW
Cutworms: GW
you complete the list because even the silly stuff will make it eventually
Penn & Teller say it best: BULLS**T!!
I mean c'mon; the "consensus" among "scientists" and especially "journalists" is that we should cower in fear using a moving target standard of "proof" as justification.
In 2005 they PREDICTED a nasty 2006 hurricane season, and it was a total freakin' BUST!! Why? Because of a mild El Nino they say.
So, why didn't oh-so-mighty their models predict the damned El Nino? If they cannot do that, they certainly cannot predict global climate 100 years from now.
Better question: if they plug in all the numbers for 2006 and run the model backwards do you get anything that looks even a bit like 2005, 1955, 1905 or 1855? If not go back to your lab & shut up until it does.
Lots of hurricanes: GW
No hurricanes: GW
Floods: GW
Droughts: GW
El Niño: GW
No El Niño: GW
Famine: GW
Obesity: GW
Plagues: GW
Locusts: GW
Deaths of first born: GW
Catsup won't come out: GW
Cold weather: GW
Hot weather: GW
Sunny days: GW
Cloudy days: GW
Crabgrass: GW
Cutworms: GW
you complete the list because even the silly stuff will make it eventually
Penn & Teller say it best: BULLS**T!!
I do think that scientists should be very careful about the words they use in their reports but I also think that your logic is fundamentally wrong.
1. that "we should cower in fear" is more of the journalists point of view than the scientists, if anyones point of view at all
2. they have to adapt, just like everybody else, to the new data that is available to them and if that means changing their models/predictions then so be it
3. in any report like that there is always a "worst case scenario" that HAS to be included. If the press (for obvious reasons) or you (for whatever reason) choose to concentrate on the worst case scenario then that is your problem, not the scientist's
4. Even though our idea of how things work (climate, physics, biology, whatever) may be far from perfect it is the only thing that we can rely on as long as we do it with CAUTION and MODESTY. There are no (real) alternatives to this.
Comment