Scott Adams, author of the famous Dilbert Cartoon, has challenged readers to find a qualified scientist who thinks climate models do a good job of predicting the future.
The Climate Science ChallengeI keep hearing people say that 97% of climate scientists are on the same side of the issue. Critics point out that the number is inflated, but we don’t know by how much. Persuasion-wise, the “first offer” of 97% is so close to 100% that our minds assume the real number is very high even if not exactly 97%.That’s good persuasion. Trump uses this method all the time. The 97% anchor is so strong that it is hard to hear anything else after that. Even the people who think the number is bogus probably think the real figure is north of 90%.But is it? I have no idea.So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.Notice I am avoiding the question of the measurements. That’s a separate question. For this challenge, don’t let your scientist conflate the measurements or the basic science of CO2 with the projections. Just ask the scientist to offer an opinion on the credibility of the models only... More. Read on!
He also tweeted this:
Climate Science Challenge. Find a scientist -- just one -- who says the climate prediction models are credible: bit.ly/2hNEFHD
Climate models are the core of the climate scare, but even the scientists who produce them know their predictive powers are weak...
The following presentation by Pat Frank details some of the devastating predictive weaknesses of climate models, especially their poor statistical management of uncertainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment