Post by steve on Apr 15, 2009 15:36:44 GMT
Just because I link to an article and use a relevant quote from the article to make a point does not mean that I support everything in the article!
The quote I took from my link supports what I said about the mid troposphere data not showing any warming because it is affected by stratospheric cooling. The source of the quote is relevant because it comes from the people who have created the T2LT data, and it is more likely to be trusted by sceptics here because it comes from "sceptics". I assume most here know that Christy and Spencer have been working for years trying to falsify the models. Obviously I am assuming they are (still) wrong and the models are (more) accurate.
Working for years?!!!!!
I wasn't aware of really any "work" they have done to falsify the models. Unless of course you are talking about their observations and how their opinions have evolved as a result of those observations. . . .but I am not sure that qualifies as "working for years trying to falsify the models" except in maybe some kind of a paranoid mind.
I have been involved in several big modeling projects. Fact is a model is nothing more than an untested hypothesis. So when you tell me you have faith in the models I am intensely interested in why.
So if you could, could you provide me any published climate model and show me how it accurately predicted the future from its publication date to the present date. (without any alterations).
Inserting alterations are OK but the tracking needs to be from the alternation date. . . .meaning any tracking up until the alteration date doesn't count.
And out of fairness when determining whether such a model meets the standard, no observations are allowed from persons or persons supervised by those who have advocated civil disobedience to force political action on the topic of climate. I see that as too much of a breach of perception of independence or integrity of the data far too great to be acceptable.
The phrase "working for years trying to falsify the models" has both a literal and implied meaning. Every scientist involved in developing and using models is doing so to either falsify the model or the data - that's the scientific process. But it is a historical fact that Christy and Spencer have tended to favour the satellite data over the models. As it's an off-topic aside to an off-topic comment, I'll leave it there except to say that I don't have "faith" in models - that's far too strong a statement.