Met chief admits empirical evidence isnt as good as models [modified]
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/13/downing_cambridge_climate_conference/[^] "Met's principle research scientist John Mitchell told us: "People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful," adding, "Our approach is not entirely empirical."" Observation evidence is not very usefull? NOT VERY USEFULL??? And he calls himself a scientist? So whem the earth continues its lack of warming, or starts cooling, which it has done if you look at ocean heat content (more reliable than near surface air tenmps) he can blithely say, thats OK, our models show its warming, so we will continue alarming the populace with scare stories and get research funding, ie wages, to research the unprecedented warming. While the people paying his wages are freezing.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
modified on Thursday, May 19, 2011 3:57 AM
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/13/downing_cambridge_climate_conference/[^] "Met's principle research scientist John Mitchell told us: "People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful," adding, "Our approach is not entirely empirical."" Observation evidence is not very usefull? NOT VERY USEFULL??? And he calls himself a scientist? So whem the earth continues its lack of warming, or starts cooling, which it has done if you look at ocean heat content (more reliable than near surface air tenmps) he can blithely say, thats OK, our models show its warming, so we will continue alarming the populace with scare stories and get research funding, ie wages, to research the unprecedented warming. While the people paying his wages are freezing.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
modified on Thursday, May 19, 2011 3:57 AM
fat_boy wrote:
"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful," adding, "Our approach is not entirely empirical."
Your Mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find the context of this remark. Models are better than observational evidence for understanding how complex systems work. Of course, observational evidence provides the input to the models, and is the yard-stick that determines whether the models are accurate, but of itself, it is not very useful in understanding the workings of the climate. In the context of the above statement, I can accept John Mitchell's statement. My beef is that the models are not yet mature enough to be used to support the drastic measures proposed at Climate Change conferences.
fat_boy wrote:
And he calls himself a scientist?
No, he is a scientist, which is why I would prefer to know the context, rather than take the remarks as proof of incompetence.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah