An Alarmist "study" purporting to "debunk" the obvious fact that virtually every single IPCC endorsed climate model run is wrong has been shown to be an exercise in circular reasoning and statistical incompetence. It was published in Nature - a so called "refereed" journal except that all the referees are on Team Climate Hysteria's roster. Blatant confirmation bias crossed with statistical illiteracy and laziness is a recipe for...well for Nature. So how do you know what you know?
This neatly illustrates the bind Climate Alarmists (actually Hysterics) have gotten themselves into: here's Nick Lewis' piece (with the concurrence of Universities of Edinburgh and New Brunswick statistics professors) debunking the claim.
Simply reading Mr. Lewis' restatement of the offending paper's baroque reasoning and methods gives one a feel for how much Alarmists are tying themselves in knots to square the circle between their predictions and steadily diverging reality. The chain of reasoning is so convoluted that they fail to notice that they are in effect treating values the model generates as endogenous parameters thereby turning themselves into "circle jerks".
Believing in the Climate Messiah seems to give His followers a babbling, incomprehensible glossolalia where any string of terms or words is hailed as "truth" so long as their conclusion points to the long awaited apocalypse when Climate Jesus returns in power and glory, rewarding the faithful and consigning the unrepentant to a greenhouse heated hell.
It's all so bloody pathetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment