Problem is that when you view any of the the model's projections with their margins of error, you find that within a year or less, the predicted margin of error subsumes the maximum predicted temperature excursions on both sides of the mean. Which makes the model useless as a predictor of anything except IPCC and government funding.rEvolutionist wrote:Well these are based on models, and models are only as good as their algorithms, computing power, and the inputs they get. As inputs get better (and algorithms and computing power get more advanced) the models get better. It's absolutely no surprise that older models have larger error margins. And as long as those error margins are accepted, then it's a valid scientific process. There's a fallacious line of reason that denialists love to use - that is, one model was once wrong (or two or three were) therefore all models are therefore wrong. It's idiotic thinking, but the kind you expect from imbecilic denialists.
In other words, the models themselves admit that they cannot produce an accurate prediction even a year into the future, much less five years, much less 50 years. It all turns out to be wild-assed guesses and ex post facto revisionism. And then there's that inconvenient sixteen year excursion from the predictions...
he's got experience from a Catholic school and all.
