Climate modellers think just because the write down equations and use some fortran finite difference techniques they have results that mean anything.
The most detailed record of the Earth's climate over the past 250 000 years is making modern
climate modellers think again about the implications of a greenhouse world
The difference between someone maintaining an old / kit car and a climate modeller is that the CAGW
climate modeller thinks that after each iteration he's got it right whereas the car mechanic knows that something else will go wrong with the car sooner or later.
Not exact matches
Do you
think climate modellers have an infinite amount of time to spend on doing scenarios?
I also
think that paleoclimate scientists tend to see more possibility of abrupt
climate changes than
climate modellers do.
It is a very interesting
thought experiment to ask what the plight of
climate modellers would be if industrial civilization had arisen earlier, somewhat after the Last Glacial Maximum when D - O events were common and maybe even the Younger Dryas was looming.
That
climate modellers nevertheless
think those models are good enough to base public policy on shows that they lack the self - criticism inherent in real science.
The
modellers want you to
think otherwise and that there is no GIGO or doubt in
climate science.
I
think paleoclimate is more useful than
climate modelling (but don't tell that to the
modellers!).
I
think that many
climate modellers are similar to astrologers — they both use pseudo-scientific mumbo - jumbo to produce their forecasts, which tell their customers what they want to hear.
I still
think your choice of the Chicxulub meteor is a difficult one to use as it so clearly had major and long lasting impacts over the time scales that current
climate modellers are working on.
Gee Wayne — isn't it incredible that
climate modellers haven't
thought of that!