Scott Adams Explodes Cult of Gaia, Reveals Falsehood of Climate Models March 10, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in attachments, cultural marxism, error, foolishness, fun, huh?, It's all about the $$$, persecution, Revolution, silliness, Society, technology.
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, who has been revealing himself to be quite the anti-leftist of late, attacks the cult of gaia-worshipping climate activists who have been telling us constantly for over 40 years that Mother Earth is doomed, DOOMED, unless – surprise! – their favorite political platforms are enacted. And these same people tell us how terrible it is for Christians to influence politics with their religious views. What about YOUR religious views, sunshine?
At any rate, this is pretty good, just how many climate models turn out wrong, for just one to be right? Is it 50? 100? 5000? How many that might be right, today, were right 20 years ago, or will be in another 20 years? I can tell you the answer: none.
This is a sort of Occam’s Razor logic that is deadly to fantasists:
I will bet anyone $1 million dollars that I can come up with a climate forecast model that ignores C02 and still predicts the temperature 30 years from now to within half a degree. Does anyone want to take that bet?
Obviously there is a trick involved, so I won’t accept your bet for ethical reasons. But let’s see if you can figure out how I could win that bet every time.
I am 100% confident I can build a climate prediction model, using my current skill set, that will predict the measured temperature in 30 years to within half a degree.
Furthermore, you can pick whatever measurement type and place you want for the bet. My trick does not depend on doing anything clever with the measurement itself.
I can also build an accurate climate prediction model for any local geography. I can do it for the ocean or the air. And in each case, I have a 100% chance of getting the right answer to within half a degree.
Would you take the bet?………
……..how I could make a climate model that is right every time?
All I need to do is make a hundred different models, each producing output that is half a degree apart, until I have at least one model that fits every possible outcome. My models would look like this:
Model 1: Current Temp + .5 degrees
Model 2: Current Temp + 1 degree
Model 3: Current Temp + 1.5 degrees
And I’d include all the temperatures below the current temperature too, just in case we start to cool off. In 30 years, one of my prediction models will be correct by chance. I’ll throw away all the loser models and collect my $1 million bet.
Now keep all of that in your head and take a second look at this headline. Does this model still look impressive? I’m guessing there were quite a few prediction models in the past, and lots of them now too. One of them will be more accurate than the others in 30 years.
Does that really tell you anything?
My point here is that I don’t care how many climate models are accurate if you don’t tell me how many were wrong. If 99 out of 100 climate scientists create models that are wrong, and one gets it right, would you bet on that winning model to stay right in the future?