Unfortunately, much of climate science is filled with non-falsifiable
theories. As some say, if it ain't falsifiable... it ain't science.
Is a climate model falsifiable? Ho, ho.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/22/2013 6:08 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> We can agree on a couple of things.
> 1. Climate 'modellers' are probably the least useful scientists in the room
> on this issue.
> 2. All theories should be subject to proof-disproof - on both sides (both
> faith and disbelief are equally suspect).
>
> But still...it moves.
>
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.soultheft.com
> Author/Publisher: The SLR Compendium - http://www.blurb.com/books/3732813
>
>
>
> On 23/02/2013, at 12:25 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> I suppose I was long ago conditioned to be leery of modelers since I
>> myself was heavily involved in a simulation model of one of IBM's
>> smallest manufacturing plants in the early 70s. The intent was to try
>> to predict the actual output of the plant. In a nutshell, the model
>> kept growing more and more complex. It finally met its end when the
>> complexity of the model caused the runtime to exceed real time. The
>> net: You would need more than a month to predict the month's output.
>> Unfortunately, even today's far faster computers wouldn't have helped
>> because the answer would still be very wrong anyhow.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|