Climate Science: "Thus, we have modeling results which are not quantitatively compared with observations used to make a 90 year prediction.
To publish such forecasts in Science magazine, or elsewhere is not science. Regardless of your views on how society should mitigate and/or adapt to the human influences on the climate system, the publication of such articles, other than as opinion editorials, promotes an inaccurate and inappropriate view of our understanding of climate."
Monday, July 17, 2006
Climate (non-)Science
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The engineer in me has been absolutely appalled at the 'vocal ones' chattering on about climate and producing poor or downright bad papers and press releases. Science can not be 'made up' or 'forced' and still be Science. The ability to create a model is trivial. To have a valid model is a real accomplishment.
My training and practice is in a field where numbers seem to rule but, getting the numbers is difficult to nearly impossible.
Unlike the Structural Engineers, for example, I cannot analyze the structure, go to tables, then grab some proven numbers and 'plug and crank' in the equations.
Like the Structural Engineers, when the numbers have been cranked, digested and regurgitated, now I have to apply the answer and develop a usable solution.
As a Geotechnical Engineer, I truly understand trying to analize a problem with scattered and oftentimes inadequate data. Nobody really wants to pay for the gathering of information to make a good GUESS of the profile and strength of soils/rocks in the potentially unstable slope at the Colorado River, or along the roads cuts in Powderhorn, Crested Butte or Telluride.
The real kicker is, when somebody is willing to really put the bucks down, our comparatively good to excellant information may still be very poor, considering what the Structural Engineers get to work with (steel members manufactured according to their wishes).
So here is this Engineering Nerd, looking at the Climate Nerds, some of which are very careful scientists and honest folks, shoehorned in with the scum. The careful and honest ones are nearly overwelmed. The publications we should be depending upon to filter out some of the garbage, are guilty of complicity in spewing out this junk and calling it science.
A pox on them.
Rant over. Will go back to work and make a few of my clients happy.
Post a Comment