01-16-2013, 12:44 AM
Will Collier wrote:
[quote=davester]
Considering the amount of woefully inaccurate garbage posted on the wattsupwiththat.com blog, I would be highly skeptical of something like this.
You mean not equating the output of software models with actual science?
Why, the nerve.
There are two issues here:
1. Software models are an inherent part of virtually all science today. If you don't like it, then please abandon all technologies that rely on science. Software models are calibrated based on real world data sets, preferably multiple independent data sets. That's simply how science is done. If you don't understand this then you have no business trying to critique science.
2. Mr. Watts, the former weatherman, to his credit, has called out some errors in some of the data sets and some of the models used to simulate climatic effects. Unfortunately, and not to his credit, he has also called out errors or drawn conclusions that are in fact erroneous or at the least not supported by the data he presents. Mr. Watts does not practice, and never has practiced, science. A true scientist creates a hypothesis and then devises tests that attempt to invalidate his/her hypothesis to see if it will stand up to scrutiny. Mr. Watts creates hypotheses and then only gathers data that supports his hypotheses. Those of us in science refer to people like this as religious figures. Actually, given his single minded direction, he might better be described as a conspiracy theorist. Granted, there are some religious figures in the climate science world that tout hypotheses that are in opposition to those of Mr. Watts. However, that does not excuse Mr. Watts' behavior.