 |
| [His Latin translation certainly inspires scepticism-the RS motto means 'not compelled to swear by the words of the masters'] |
Climate modelers are not scientists.
I’ve long known that climate modellers were charlatan “scientists” who only got called that term by gullible media, politicians and politically motivated academics and other campaign groups. However, I’ve never seen such a coherent condemnation of them as on WUWT...
- They neither respect nor understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.
- They understand nothing of the meaning or method of propagated error.
- They think physical error bars mean the model itself is oscillating between the uncertainty extremes. (I kid you not.)
- They don’t understand the meaning of physical error.
- They don’t understand the importance of a unique result.
Bottom line? Climate modelers are not scientists. Climate modeling is not a branch of physical science. Climate modelers are unequipped to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
Discussion
To put it simply... clouds have an order of magnitude more effect on the climate than anything like CO2, there is NO WAY TO DISCOUNT THE EFFECT OF CLOUDS .. SO NO SANE, HONEST & KNOWLEDGABLE PERSON COULD LOOK AT A CHANGE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AND SAY “that must be CO2″.
And it is clear from Pat Frank’s experience with the people that run the climate journals that they are entirely unworthy to hold any such position.
What this means (together with my own work) is that it is pointless speculating as to what CO2 will or won’t do, because it’s very likely a pretty minor player in the climate game that only got any prominence
