This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Thanks Brad for that link-A most interesting discussion if you have 2 hrs. to spare!
George M. has some interesting comments in his latest offerings on the Grauniad CiF.
The fact that you CAN run a climate model in 'pessimistic' mode demonstrates that computer models of this kind are essentially creative, dramatic works like a play or an opera, rather than science.
Apparently there are probability curves involved in those models also. I think this is a "hand waving" exercise to make themselves sound like they are on top of the situation.
I suspect that this must mean that at each "decision" point in the computer model the dice are rolled using the probability function to decide what will happen.
The lady in purple ( I refuse to find out her name, because I will be biased against anything she writes) discusses the positive feedback loop associated with CO2 causing warming causing increased evaporation causing more greenhouse gas which will warm the earth more causing more warming causing more greenhouse gas...
They can't seem to get it through their heads that their isn't any more energy for the gasses to absorb, which is why this happens.
Unfortunately my degree is not in Climate Science, so my opinion doesn't count.
I can draw a box though...
The Climate Modeler on this panel (whose name I also don't want to know) starts off stating "A scientist who isn't trying to figure out how to disprove his work isn't doing science".
For a moment, I thought this guy might actually understand. That statement was so Popperesque. Then he kept talking.
And discussed pessimistic runs of his models and how terrible the things were that he wasn't sharing with the world.
"Look, my model says that if I use this rubberband, I can launch this pebble to the moon, Isn't that amazing.."
"Um, Have you tried to use that rubberband to launch a pebble?" asked the skeptic.
"WHAT, why would I do that?"