Still More Climate Follies | Power Line:
I've been listening to the response to the report on MPR, the "95% confidence" is the lead story. Sub-stories are things like "Hurricane Sandy, Floods, Storms, big weather changes ..." are ALL now PROOF of "Global Warming". The climate elite is in the process of "doubling down" as it becomes completely clear that their predictions are and have been very wrong. In Science, one learns perhaps MORE by understanding that ALL Science is at best "true for the moment" due to the problems of induction, but without complete devotion to the requirement that DATA, not hypothesis, is king, it is just witchcraft, not science at all.
When the data fails to match your model, your model is what is wrong. Doubling down means that you are desperate, a gambler, a politician, an ideologue, a believer, a charlatan, but you are no longer a scientist. A scientist searches for Scientific Truth ... which requires very common admissions of defeat.
In the excellent book, "The Moon in the Nautilus Shell", Daniel Botkin points out a key phrase that fits so well with current Warmist thinking ... "in spite of appearances tot he contrary". When one who is supposed to be a scientist starts talking like that, they are on dangerous ground.
What isn't discussed or even generally reported are things like the huge North Polar ice cap growth in 2013 including 20 yachts frozen in as a result of trying make the NW passage. http://www.catholic.org/green/story.php?id=52333
As we see in the PL article, the Warmists have taken to pointing out that "30 years isn't climate" ... which makes one wonder why 1980-2K was such a big "trend"? They are also starting to realize that "the map is not the territory" and "the model is not reality". Models help us understand things if we are careful to realize that a ship in a bottle and a ship at sea are two very different things.
We have now spent 15 years of reality failing to follow the models of the warmists, and in 2013 we fell outside the bottom range in which their models said there was "no chance" of happening relative to temperature projections.
In the words of Richard Feynman:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
'via Blog this'