>>7668602>>7668610Our best models are semi-empirical fitted to historical data that has shown no long term predictive power. In fact the utter failure of the models to predict anything was never unexpected as from an epistemological point of view we might as well have been fitting polynomial curves to temperature differentials and calling it a day.
Modelling very large systems in general are problematic. Even more accurate a-priori models such as the Omega equation derivatives only provide short time domain accuracy in simulations. All we know for certain about climate change is based on historical data. Our simulations give us an idea, but to make assertive claims based on long term outputs of the "AGW" input to these semi-empirical models as many climatologists have naively done is frankly laughable.
Of course dumb fucks (like
>>7668602) in both political camps argue so vehemently with idiotic assertions about all this because lobbyists rarely have a technical background. The fact that journal editors have taken sides on research they do not fully understand is a disgusting shit stain on "the scientific community" that will take centuries to fully wipe off. Of course, in the mean time Libfucktards think that Nobel prize winning physicists are resigning from societies because of "titanic cold/hot" arguments etc. and not because they have valid reservations about how poor quality science is being politicized. So they make their stupid little jokes on their facebook page which is just as ridiculous as those "titanic cold/hot" arguments and they actually think they are smart and on "the side of science" or whatever stupid fucking self important layman shit they imagined which only serves to frustrate real scientists*.
In any case AGW was never something that should've been presented in school textbooks as fact. In the long term it will only damage the public image of science and what normalfags perceive as "the scientific community".
