Climate Modeling, Redux

Gregory Young over at American Thinker wrote a great post about climate modeling. I can’t complain about most of it. It’s the same stuff I’ve screamed time and time again.

I do take offense at one issue. Here’s the quote that sums the issue:

Like all modeling, one attempts to study the past through scientific observation, accurately and unbiasedly collect the data, and then fit the data to a dynamic computer model that is meant to predict, to some degree of accuracy, some measure of tomorrow.  In this way scientists hope to discover trends that not only document the past, but could forecast the future. 

Computer modeling does not try to predict the future. Scientists and engineers are not fortune tellers predicting that someone tall dark and handsome will enter your life after a long trip.

Computer modeling is nothing more than an approximation of an output based on a series of inputs. And the inputs are nothing more than assumptions  based on biases, approximations, pseudo-science, bad science, junk science, science, guesses, inaccurate measurements, accurate measurements, estimates, statistics, plain thin air, and the color Al Gore’s underpants last Tuesday (orange and hot pink plaid, if you really must know – and don’t ask how I know… I am a woman of mystery).

Computer modeling output is a scenario dependant upon a very narrow and precise set of circumstances. It’s not predicting the future. We should stay away from that language. It makes the scientific and engineering community look like spoon benders at the circus.

To the average Joe, the climate change community already appears to be a cult with a doomsday Apocalyptic message. Scientists and engineers should take care that they are not tainted by the Church of Climate Change’s overly zealous claims and predictions.


One comment on “Climate Modeling, Redux

  1. Abbadon says:

    Unbiasedly??? What the hell kind of word is that?

    That’s the shit I take exception to…

Comments are closed.