View Single Post
Old May 23rd 17, 01:40 PM posted to
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
Posts: 1,073
Default Climate science

On 23/05/2017 12:57, wrote:

Clearly someone who doesn't have a clue about how science is done. Scientists are "in the pay" of seeking after truth by observation and experiment, not in the "green blob".

That is how science *should* be done.
However, when research money is scarce, but offered to anybody who will
come up with the "right" answer, there will be enough scientists
prepared to take thirty pieces of silver rather than be out of a job to
form a core of scientific opinion that others will then swallow. That
gives Governments taxation opportunities because most people when faced
with "scientific evidence" will pay additional taxes to "save the planet".

Remember that a consultant is someone who will borrow your watch so that
he can tell you the time. It isn't difficult to eliminate during the
grant sift process the ones who will do proper science instead of
listening to their paymasters.

Also bear in mind that originally global warming was stated to be *all*
man-made, and now the consensus is that it is more of a natural
phenomenon and mankind has to find ways to modify its behaviour in the
hope of alleviating the impact. That shift of emphasis does indicate to
me that the first reports and models were based on an approach of "this
is the answer, now prove it is true" rather than proper science.

The weather is a complicated thing. Even with supercomputers it is
difficult to get the right forecast more than a week ahead. To create
models that are expected to get the right answer decades ahead requires
far more factors to be taken into account that current research is
prepared to pay for. Yet orbit variations, sunspot counts, density of
interstellar space dust (to name but a few) have all been shown to
influence climate, and such external factors are omitted from current
models. Also all the models have a common core calculation which
everybody assumes is correct but nobody has actually proved that it is,
so if one forecast model is wrong, they all will be to some extent.

I do believe in climate change. It has always happened and always will.
However the predictions of how it will change in the future is little
more than a semi-educated guess at the moment.