In big-boy science, people who run an experiment and arrive at meaningful findings will publish not only those findings but the data and methodology they used to reach those findings. They do that because in most sciences, a conclusion is not really considered robust until multiple independent parties have replicated the finding, and they can’t replicate the finding until they know exactly how it was reached. Physics scientists don’t run around talking about peer review as the be-all-end-all of scientific validation. Instead of relying on peers to read over an article to look for mistakes, they go out and see if they can replicate the results. It is expected that others in the profession will try to replicate, or even tear down, a controversial new finding. Such a process is why we aren’t all running around talking about the cold fusion "consensus" based on "peer-reviewed science." It would simply be bizarre for someone in physics, say, to argue that their findings were beyond question simply because it had been peer reviewed by a cherry-picked review group and to refuse to publish their data or detailed methodology.
Some day climate science may be all grown up, but right now its far from it.
Any paper, peer reviewed or no, that does not offer full disclosure of all data and methodology is, in my view, fatally flawed at the outset. It should be graded “F”. I am singularly unimpressed by all these half-done alleged studies that hide behind computer work that then leave out programming information or source code {or claim intellectual propery rights to hide a portion of the work}. In my mind, this type of work is nothing more than a computerized version of a temple priest striving to divine the future through a study of chicken entrails.
As I’ve said on my blog over and over:
“Peer-reviewed” means liberals rubber-stamping the studies of their fellow liberals.
In other words, they are not just scientific peers, but liberal peers too.
The climate models do not output facts. Because many projections are for decades in the future, those models cannot be verified for decades. Anything that cannot be verified is not science.
One of the most incriminating aspects of the James Hansen et al. alarmist crowd is their blatant disregard for transparency and openness about their data and “processes.”
This smacks of a coverup.
If you were to do similar things in the financial industry, you would be subject to fines, shut down, and civil lawsuits. There are very explicit record retention requirements, and strict performance publishing guidelines in the financial markets.
Unless climate science adopts similar guidelines, it will not be taken seriously.
What a bizarre little screed. Obviously, you’ve read plenty of McIntyre and shared his righteous indignation when people fail to jump through the hoops he demands them to, at a time of his choosing. But equally obviously, you’ve never come within a considerable distance of actual scientists or the actual process by which science happens. Your scribblings about how you think it might be are very amusing but way, way wide of the mark.
‘Mesa Econoguy’ – climate science ‘will not be taken seriously’? I love the dreamworlds you guys live in! You really believe what you’re saying! It’s fantastic! But in the real world, climate science is taken very seriously. Right wing denialist nutters are not.
John Galt – if astronomers told you that an asteroid ten miles across would hit the earth in 2100, presumably you’d say that was a claim that could only be verified in 2100, and therefore not science. You’d be wrong, obviously, and you’d also have made yourself look extremely stupid.
“Scientist”… You’ve posted some fatuous nonsense in the past, but your latest “asteroid v climate science” comparison takes the biscuit. Using Newton’s Laws (even though they’re not quite correct, but near enough) it is possible to calculate very accurately the orbit of your proposed bringer of doom. However, as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a single GCM that has got within a country mile of an accurate prediction of present, let alone future, climate – to the point that they’ve had to change the name from “prediction” to “possible scenario” in order to hide the embarassment.
Who do you think that you’re kidding? “Scientist”…? Yeah… Right.
as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a single GCM that has got within a country mile of an accurate prediction of present, let alone future, climate – well, that just means that you are ignorant. And you missed the point of the analogy. ‘John Galt’ thinks that predictions of what will happen decades from now are not science because they can’t be verified right now, so he obviously doesn’t understand what science is. Do you?
And what a woeful misunderstanding of the terminology. Factors which affect climate are changing in ways that cannot be known in advance. Therefore, models runs have to make assumptions about how those factors will change, and produce climate predictions based on those assumptions. Therefore, even if all the physics is perfectly incorporated, a model might not produce a result which reflected reality if its assumptions on how atmospheric composition would change differed from what actually happened. So, they run a number of models with different assumptions. Sadly, yapping idiots with no clue about science don’t understand this rather simple point, and couple their abysmal ignorance of how model results have compared with reality in the past with a pathetic belief that there’s some huge conspiracy going on, and conclude that the terminology of ‘projections’ rather than ‘predictions’ has some significance beyond the simple fact that no-one can know exactly ahead of time how the concentration of the atmosphere will change.
“What a bizarre little screed. Obviously, you’ve read plenty of McIntyre and shared his righteous indignation when people fail to jump through the hoops he demands them to, at a time of his choosing. But equally obviously, you’ve never come within a considerable distance of actual scientists or the actual process by which science happens. Your scribblings about how you think it might be are very amusing but way, way wide of the mark.”
But of course you never read the link he supplied and several others.Showing clearly the resistance of obtaining data of already published science papers.The e-mails are posted showing this clearly.
How can any scientist hope to replicate such a paper when not allowed part of the data or source code to work with?
Your criticism as usual is all up front and lacking in substance.
“John Galt – if astronomers told you that an asteroid ten miles across would hit the earth in 2100, presumably you’d say that was a claim that could only be verified in 2100, and therefore not science. You’d be wrong, obviously, and you’d also have made yourself look extremely stupid.”
LOL,
He is talking about CLIMATE MODELS! They are nverifiable guesses that you AGW believers are so fond of.It is stupid since such modeling science is not well understood.To be making such a bold prediction that far into the future.
You talked about something else entirely.Orbital mechanisms in the solar system are pretty well understood.With early data on such an asteroids orbit.Then with a few subsequent data of its orbit.The rest can be calculated out with good accuracy.
Your comparative anology is really bad.
Ha ha! Are you illiterate? Did you read what I said to Jeff, who also missed the point? I’ll say it again: ‘John Galt’ thinks that predictions of what will happen decades from now are not science because they can’t be verified right now, so he obviously doesn’t understand what science is. Do you?
LOLOLOL,
Your words in the past post:
“I’ll say it again: ‘John Galt’ thinks that predictions of what will happen decades from now are not science because they can’t be verified right now,…”
Here is what John wrote.Can you spot the difference?
“The climate models do not output facts. Because many projections are for decades in the future, those models cannot be verified for decades. Anything that cannot be verified is not science.”
You wrote “..they can’t be verified right now..”
John wrote “..those models cannot be verified for decades..”
John never says RIGHT NOW.He clearly states FOR DECADES.
You are pathetic.
“Scientist”: (Jeff: “as far as I’m aware, there isn’t a single GCM that has got within a country mile of an accurate prediction of present, let alone future, climate”) “well, that just means that you are ignorant. And you missed the point of the analogy.”
I can assure you that I’m not ignorant and the “point” of the analogy demonstrated just how wide of the mark your “scientific” understanding truly is.
‘John Galt’ thinks that predictions of what will happen decades from now are not science because they can’t be verified right now, so he obviously doesn’t understand what science is. Do you?
Had it occurred to you that there’s a none-too-subtle difference between predictions based upon empirically-derived or tested rules and predictions of the “Nostradamus” variety? Predicting an orbit based on Newton is an example of the former, GCMs an example of the latter, they are not “science”.
Factors which affect climate are changing in ways that cannot be known in advance.
Which, of course, reduces them from “predictions” to “guesses”, you idiot! A guess arrived at by running a bit of kludged code on a fast computer does not undergo a state change. Have you ever thought when about to fire off these devastating rebuttals it might be best to ascertain first that the “gun” isn’t pointing at your dick?
Therefore, models runs have to make assumptions about how those factors will change, and produce climate predictions based on those assumptions.
You mean “make guesses”? Think how accurate the prediction of an orbit would be if astronomers were allowed to sign arbitrary values to say, gravitational attraction.
Therefore, even if all the physics is perfectly incorporated, a model might not produce a result which reflected reality if its assumptions on how atmospheric composition would change differed from what actually happened. So, they run a number of models with different assumptions.
Known in my line of work as “the scattergun approach”. I’ll let you in on how it’s done: (1) Run the model lots of times, adjusting parameters every run. (2) wait for an empirical result to be measured. (3) Find the one run out of 500 that produces something like the same result. (4) Claim success for your ability as a modeller. Or, if (3) cannot be established, describe the outputs from the model as “speculative scenarios” or “projections” instead.
Sadly, yapping idiots with no clue about science don’t understand this rather simple point, and couple their abysmal ignorance of how model results have compared with reality in the past with a pathetic belief that there’s some huge conspiracy going on, and conclude that the terminology of ‘projections’ rather than ‘predictions’ has some significance beyond the simple fact that no-one can know exactly ahead of time how the concentration of the atmosphere will change.
Which was exactly the point that the OP was making you “yapping idiot”. It’s not “science” it’s “guesswork in a party frock”. Models, to be any use as predictive tools, have to have at least a nodding acquaintance with reality. Or, to put it another way, at the present state of the art “GCMs are inaccurate, kludged, piles of shite”, perfect examples of Murray Laver’s “Doctrine of Spurious Accuracy”, which have zero useful predctive ability and many, from the code that I’ve seen, have been created by rank amateurs. Was it Feinman who reckoned “Give me a model with 6 parameters and I can give you an elephant, give me one more and I can make it wiggle its trunk”?
As to the concept of a “conspiracy going on” I’m a firm believer in the idea that “In a given situation, if it comes to deciding whether the cause was cock-up or conspiracy, go for cock-up every time”.
Sunsettommy – just so it’s totally clear then – you agree with John Galt that something which can only be verified in the future is not science, or you disagree? In your usual semi-literate way, you are not able to write with any sense or clarity.
Jeff, you’re appallingly ignorant, despite your denial. GCMs are rather successful in predicting how climate changes in response to changing inputs. That is why they are used. To claim that there isn’t a single GCM that has got within a country mile of an accurate prediction of present, let alone future, climate, you must be seriously mentally backward. You don’t understand the difference between the input to a model and the model itself. You don’t understand that inputs are not actually mere guesses, but are derived from the current state of the world, and how it has been observed to change in the past. You actually think that doing model runs for a range of possible changes in atmospheric composition is somehow a bad idea. Your crazed beliefs about how modelling is done are pure ignorance mixed with boneheaded stupidity.
You claim to have seen code. Which code, exactly, and what was wrong with it? One example will do.
Jeff, you’re appallingly ignorant, despite your denial.
I suppose that you’re entitled to your opinion, mine however, is correct.
GCMs are rather successful in predicting how climate changes in response to changing inputs.
No they are not. Compared with a “proper” mathmatical model of a process that is understood they are close to useless. Not one, I repeat, not one has predicted the present state of the climate. It’s easy, if sometimes non-trivial, to model physical states – as long as chaos is not a major player in the process, which it appears to be with all “atmospheric” processes… May I draw your attention to the following, written by Jerome Schmitttaken in “American Thinker”.
“Almost all semiconductor manufacturing processes occur in closed vessels. This permits the engineers to precisely control the input chemicals (gases) and the pressure, temperature, etc. with high degree of precision and reliability. Closed systems are also much easier to model as compared to systems open to the atmosphere (that should tell us something already). Computer models are used to inform the engineering team as the design the shape, temperature ramp, flow rates, etc, etc, (i.e. the thermodynamics) of the new reactor.
Nonetheless, despite the fact that 1) the chemical reactions are highly studied, 2) there exists extensive experience with similar reactors, much of it recorded in the open literature, 3) the input gases and materials are of high and known purity, and 4) the process is controlled with incredible precision, the predictions of the models are often wrong, requiring that the reactor be adjusted empirically to produce the desired product with quality and reliability.
The fact that these artificial “climates” are closed systems far simpler than the global climate, have the advantage of the experimental method, and are subject to precise controls, and yet are frequently wrong, should lend some humility to those who make grand predictions about the future of the earth’s atmosphere.
So serious are the problems, sometimes, that it is not unheard of for an experimental reactor to be scrapped entirely in favor of starting from scratch in designing the process and equipment. Often a design adjustment predicted to improve performance actually does the opposite. This does not mean that process models are useless, for they undergird the engineer’s understanding of what is happening in the process and help him or her make adjustments to fix the problem. But it means that they cannot be relied upon by themselves to predict results. These new adjustments and related information are then used to improve the models for future use in a step by step process tested time and again against experimental reality.”
From the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
That is why they are used.
No. They are used because there’s nothing else. Like the priests of old cloistered in their temples examining the entrails of goats’ for portents, the present theocracy of “science” crouch round their supercomputers taking potshots at the future based upon very imperfectly understood hypotheses. It’s a damned-site more comfortable than getting off ones’ arse and doing some empirical science, and at the moment, probably far more lucrative in terms of grant funding.
To claim that there isn’t a single GCM that has got within a country mile of an accurate prediction of present, let alone future, climate, you must be seriously mentally backward.
You hold yourself out as an expert, cite one that last year predicted this year’s temperatures – and not as part of a 5-degree spread. Just out of interest, take a look at http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/result-of-boring-series-gavins-closer-process-falsifies/ where Lucia Liljegren, despite “helpful” suggestions from Gavin Schmidt, appears to falsify (at least at the 95% CI level) the entire range of IPCC AR4 projections. Concluding:-
“The falsification is more profound than I’ve made it sound.
Believe it or not, while the falsification is already proven, further analysis would show it to be even more profound. Recall that, since the models is supposed to be based on correct physics, and this AR(1) model is supposed to mimic the results of that model, the full claim is that the trend is m=2C/century and ρmonth=0.728 and &sigmamonth=0.175C. When I tested each of the value above, I found for example, that the values of parameters falsified individually. It is also possible to screen the data to find the probability that that the observation was 0 C/century and the estimate for ρmonth was less than 0.5 and the residuals to an OLS was less than 0.121 C. I didn’t actually do the test, but rest assured the probability this would occur is much, much less than 1.4%!
So, when compared to data, the hypothesis that the AR(1) process proposed by Gavin describes the data appears well and truly dubious. “.
You don’t understand the difference between the input to a model and the model itself. You don’t understand that inputs are not actually mere guesses, but are derived from the current state of the world, and how it has been observed to change in the past. You actually think that doing model runs for a range of possible changes in atmospheric composition is somehow a bad idea. Your crazed beliefs about how modelling is done are pure ignorance mixed with boneheaded stupidity.
As I’ve spent a large proportion of my working life in computer-based physical process modelling, I think that you might be a tad wrong with the above surmises.
You claim to have seen code. Which code, exactly, and what was wrong with it? One example will do.
Take a look at, say, the db11pdc9 module of the GCM Model II… Especially some of the “explanations” of why changes have been made, and some of the code spliced in to make them. I’m not going to go all fashion-concious and criticise it because it’s written in ForTran – I’ve been writing in that language since 1968 and it although may be an “old” language it’s still adequate for the job. I do, however, feel perfectly justified in criticising it because it looks like a kludge.
Sorry to have gone on at such length.
Not one, I repeat, not one has predicted the present state of the climate – apart from being obviously wrong (models in the 1980s predicted that temperatures would rise by ~0.2°C/decade if CO2 concentrations continued to rise at 1-2 ppm/year, and this is exactly what has been observed) this statement is simply meaningless. What exactly are you expecting? Annual global temperatures to within ±0.1°C and rainfall to within ±50mm? Try not to be a complete moron, and specify what the climate models have predicted, and how observations have differed from them, by more than the errors inherent in both. For someone who claims to have knowledge of physical process modelling, it’s surprising that you are completely unaware of how to sensibly compare model predictions with reality.
cite one that last year predicted this year’s temperatures, you demand. Like many climate idiots, it seems that you don’t know the difference between weather and climate. Climate is not something which is measurable from a single year’s data.
I asked you to give an example of a problem with a modelling code. All you can offer is a problem with how it’s commented, and with ‘some of the code’. Please do elaborate on exactly what physical process is being poorly modelled or approximated, and how this affects the results.
The length of your post is only a problem in that there is nothing of value in it at all. Post something of similar length that’s not just ignorant bluster and I’m sure we’ll all be grateful.
Welcome back Scientist – Glad to see you have returned. The conversations became pretty dull around here in your absence.
If one may be permitted to rearrange the order of “Scientist’s” post…
The length of your post is only a problem in that there is nothing of value in it at all. Post something of similar length that’s not just ignorant bluster and I’m sure we’ll all be grateful.
OK.. My pleasure.
Not one, I repeat, not one has predicted the present state of the climate – apart from being obviously wrong (models in the 1980s predicted that temperatures would rise by ~0.2°C/decade if CO2 concentrations continued to rise at 1-2 ppm/year, and this is exactly what has been observed)
Ah! I see… So of the 100-or-so models, *one* of them, in one of the “scenarios” reckoned it’d be 0.2 degrees warmer per decade… As against the others which didn’t… And this is some form of scientific triumph? In actual fact the much vaunted “Hansen A and Hansen B” scenarios predicted temperatures >1.0C warmer than today, which works out to ~0.4C per decade, twice what you are claiming. “Hansen C” is a lot closer, but that, as far as I can see, is predicated on a drastic reduction in atmospheric CO2 – which of course hasn’t happened.
…What exactly are you expecting? Annual global temperatures to within ±0.1°C and rainfall to within ±50mm?
As a professional modeller who was planning on actually using the output of the model for something in the real world… Why not?
For someone who claims to have knowledge of physical process modelling, it’s surprising that you are completely unaware of how to sensibly compare model predictions with reality.
That’s my job, sweetie. And I have a far better grasp of how they’re used in the real world than a blowhard wanabee climate scientist with delusions of adequacy.
cite one that last year predicted this year’s temperatures, you demand. Like many climate idiots, it seems that you don’t know the difference between weather and climate. Climate is not something which is measurable from a single year’s data.
Who’s talking about a single year? Show me one that has predicted the present temperature starting from *any* point in the past.
I asked you to give an example of a problem with a modelling code. All you can offer is a problem with how it’s commented, and with ‘some of the code’. Please do elaborate on exactly what physical process is being poorly modelled or approximated, and how this affects the results.
I didn’t bother quoting actual sections of code as I felt sure that you wouldn’t understand it. However, for example, there appear to be several instances where data values are swapped, apparently indiscriminately, between real and integer numbers with an almost certain loss of precision. Having given you this pointer, if you’re actually as knowledgeable as you imply, you’ll be able to find them for yourself and post them up in order to let us know that you’re the “real deal”. If you don’t then you’ll be exposed as the charlatan that I suspect you really are.
Get looking. 🙂
Scientist, where are these models? I haven’t seen one and I would expect that a 1980s model that had accurately predicted the climate 20 years or so in the future would be pretty big news.
You actually expect climate models to tell us annual average temperatures to within ±0.1°C of what is observed, Jeff? So you really don’t know the difference between climate and weather. No climate model will tell you this year how hot it will be next year, because weather noise dominates on annual timescales. Climate models tell us about climate, and climate is not measured annually. Why are you unable to grasp this?
But then, despite demanding that climate models give you accurate predictions of annual weather, you then say Who’s talking about a single year? Show me one that has predicted the present temperature starting from *any* point in the past., yet again without specifying what you mean by ‘the present temperature’. You need to develop an understanding of the timescales inherent in the climate system, and you need to learn a lot more about how to meaningfully compare climate model output with observations.
I didn’t bother quoting actual sections of code as I felt sure that you wouldn’t understand it. – ho ho. No, you didn’t quote actual sections because you have no clue at all about how the model codes work and cannot point out any error within any one of them that would materially change the output and make it less accurate. I’ve called your bluff and it seems your hand is empty. Demanding that I show you what I asked you to show me is desperately lame.
Scott: if you haven’t seen one, it’s because you haven’t looked. Hansen et al (1988) predicted that temperatures would rise by 0.24±0.06°C/decade in their scenario B. Real world forcings due to greenhouse gases have been reasonably close to those assumed in scenario B. Since 1984 (the year the model runs started), the trend from GISS annual mean anomalies has been 0.20±0.03°C/decade. From RSS, the trend is 0.24±0.04°C/decade. From HadCRUT it’s 0.20±0.03°C/decade. And from UAH it’s 0.20±0.04°C/decade.
“Scientist” (or so he hubristically claims) “I’ve called your bluff and it seems your hand is empty. Demanding that I show you what I asked you to show me is desperately lame.”
No, old bean… I’ve called yours… And you’ve come up wanting. I’ve always thought that you’re nothing but a blowhard, and you’ve proved it – if you knew your “stuff” you’d have identified the problems I’ve noticed and put me in my place by itemising them. Invective just doesn’t cut it. Now, get back in your playpen and leave us grownups in peace, there’s a good boy.
Night night… I hope the bedbugs don’t bite.
No Jeff, I asked you to point out a problem – just one – in the codes, and you’ve failed to do so. That is all there is to it. Even among climate idiots, you don’t often see such a spectacular failure to deliver on a bold claim, so well done for making yourself look like an utter tosser.
Translation: “Mommy, the nasty man expects me to understand Fortran… Wah!”
Go and make love elsewhere, charlatan.
He he he… just quote the bit of the code you have a problem with. If you can’t, admit it. What could be easier?
“No Jeff, I asked you to point out a problem – just one – in the codes, and you’ve failed to do so.”
Jeff could simply point you at http://www.climateaudit.org/ — that’s pretty much what they do there, audit (eponymously enough) for issues with coding and data sets used to make predictions. Evenhandedly, too; it’s just that virtually all the egregious errors, oddly enough, track to one side of the debate.
But that’s focusing on the trees and missing the forest. Even if modeling code was absolutely perfect and Jeff indeed could not come up with a dozen instances in about a minute by keyword search over at ClimateAudit, which anyone can, the models are still nonsense. Let me quote from the IPCC AR4 report — nothing like going straight to The Authoritative Source, I trust you’ll agree?
“The strong emphasis placed on the realism of the simulated base state provided a rationale for introducing ‘flux adjustments’ or ‘flux corrections’ (Manabe and Stouffer, 1988; Sausen et al., 1988) in early simulations. These were essentially empirical corrections that could not be justified on physical principles, and that consisted of arbitrary additions of surface fluxes of heat and salinity in order to prevent the drift of the simulated climate away from a realistic state … Both the FAR and the SAR pointed out the apparent need for flux adjustments as a problematic feature of climate modelling (Cubasch et al., 1990; Gates et al., 1996).”
Okay. Now, for those of you who are not computer scientists, when you see in a description of a model or simulation anything even close to “empirical corrections that could not be justified on physical principles” — at that very instant, you can discount its usefulness to zero. That translates to “We poke stuff in with absolutely no rational basis whatsoever until we get the result we want”. Yeah, that’s a “problematic feature” alright. One could think of other words one could use to describe a process straightforwardly admitted as ‘we make shit up.’ However, they certainly would not include any implication of future predictive value.
But those are the early simulations, right? Things are certainly much better now, right? Well, after the above they go on to claim that things are getting better, somewhat:
“By the time of the TAR, however, the situation had evolved, and about half the coupled GCMs assessed in the TAR did not employ flux adjustments. That report noted that some non-flux adjusted models are now able to maintain stable climatologies of comparable quality to flux-adjusted models (McAvaney et al., 2001). Since that time, evolution away from flux correction (or flux adjustment) has continued at some modelling centres, although a number of state-of-the-art models continue to rely on it.”
Wow! About *half* the models don’t require sticking in random unjustifiable adjustments to get the results you want? My god, you guys are *amazing*! Of course, that leads to the really obvious question that what, exactly, “state-of-the-art models continue to rely on it” ? Be nice to keep a lookout on those, yes it would. And you know what? Not one single place in the entire IPCC WG1 reports do they admit that. Odd thing to forget no? Almost as if, oh I don’t know, people with actual reasoning skills might use the admitted fact that these “state-of-the-art models”‘s conclusions were based on admittedly unjustifiable hand tweaking to get the results they want to question those conclusions? Certainly can’t allow that, now can we? Nooooo, much safer to keep the ignorant proles completely unaware that our “scientific models” amount to works of complete fiction.
But wait! It gets BETTER!
They go on to make this really quite astounding admission that even what they claim to be scientific — at least, discussable in the same breath as real science without gales of laughter coming — may really be nothing of the sort:
“(1.5.3) The design of the coupled model simulations is also strongly linked with the methods chosen for model initialisation. In flux adjusted models, the initial ocean state is necessarily the result of preliminary and typically thousand-year-long simulations to bring the ocean model into equilibrium. Non-flux-adjusted models often employ a simpler procedure based on ocean observations, such as those compiled by Levitus et al. (1994), although some spin-up phase is even then necessary. One argument brought forward is that non-adjusted models made use of ad hoc tuning of radiative parameters (i.e., an implicit flux adjustment).”
So … your “non-flux-adjusted” just means that you’ve improved to the point where instead of adjusting the outputs with no scientific basis, all you have to do is adjust the inputs with no scientific basis??!?!?!?!?
Really, you can’t even parody this. The best you can say about people like “Scientist” is that they’re too lazy to actually read any of the stuff they base their opinions on. Because, quite seriously, you cannot be sane and actually believe that the process the IPCC describes above can conceivably produce anything of predictive value.
I noticed that scientist never post at climate audit.
Gee I wonder why?
LOL