Hans Blaster
Raised by bees
- Mar 11, 2017
- 22,038
- 16,576
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Mmm-kay. People sometimes commit fraud and they also get caught. The fraud apparently caught the eyes of people in the field immediately as noted in the wikipedia article you just linked "Soon after Schön published his work on single-molecule semiconductors, others in the physics community alleged that his data contained anomalies." Which is followed by details that aren't relevant to our discussion.First, since you said you never heard of the Schon scandal, here's what Wikipedia has to say:
Schön scandal - Wikipedia
Again, the "propaganda" claim needs to be demonstrated. You are assuming it.Second, saying the science comes primarily from non-science sources overlooks how propaganda usually involves cherry-picking. Take only that which promotes the policy you desire and overlook the rest.
I've not heard of most papers. I get a list of new papers every day that accumuates to over 10,000 per year. If you want me to "recall" a study you have to be more specific (give a link). (And the phrase "accuracy of less than a random walk" is meaningless. Random walks aren't how accuracy is measured.)So it is that odds are good that you never heard of a study back in 2011 found climate models had an accuracy of less than a random walk.
You're putting a lot on some obscure study.Models have likely changed in the last 14 years so the study may well no longer be valid. The point is that, at the time, the study essentially flew under radar.
No. In fact the models from the mid-90s are accurate in the collective average (how models are actually used in climatology), when predicting the state of our current climate based on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. (All of those 90s models, like those of today, have versions for different level of possible CO2 emissions, only the ones from the past that were modeled using the CO2 emission levels that eventually occurred are relevant since the others were prediction forcings that didn't happen.)If someone is wanting to implement a change based on climate predictions, the last thing they want to hear, especially if they've invested a lot of time and money, is those predictions may well have been less accurate than guessing.
Given I don't have the information needed to evaluate this I can't properly respond.Climate models are science; the study that in 2011 the models were less accurate than a random walk is science, but telling one and not the other to promote a particular view, and that (with apologies to political science majors) isn't science.
Don't distort reality and you won't get harsh feed back.Did I mention that study was 14 years old? Did I mention climate models have (hopefully) changed? I did? Good. Wouldn't want anyone to get upset.
What?Assuming one party does it while another party doesn't strikes me like Art Buchwald's comment that when he poked fun an one party the other thought he was hilarious, but when their party was in office and he poked fun at them, they thought he's lost his sense of humor. All of them do it. Thinking that it's one and not the other creates a blind spot.
What do you know of reading scientific journals anyway?Just some advice from an old cynic who'll read "those" journals if they come up under science news.
Upvote
0