Yesterday, Dilbert creator Scott Adams issued a challenge to scientists:
Scott Adams on Twitter: “Climate Science Challenge. Find a scientist — just one — who says the climate prediction models are credible: https://t.co/SpJcVPcHmJ / Twitter”
Climate Science Challenge. Find a scientist — just one — who says the climate prediction models are credible: https://t.co/SpJcVPcHmJ
So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.
Notice I am avoiding the question of the measurements. That’s a separate question. For this challenge, don’t let your scientist conflate the measurements or the basic science of CO2 with the projections. Just ask the scientist to offer an opinion on the credibility of the models only.
Remind your scientist that as far as you know there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy. Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.
Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.
Then report back to me in the comments here or on Twitter at @ScottAdamsSays.
Here’s the problem: 97% of all the climate models over-predict the warming. If the models were reliable, roughly half would over-predict and half under-predict.
But, of course, there’s money to be made in over-predictions.