Memories of the 28th Century

Yesterday I found an article about the inability of the climate scientists to make accurate predictions, http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25...tipping-point/
. Those people have been prophesizing disaster for decades, but they have been as wrong as the people who predict the end of the world. Biblical prophets with records like that would have been sent into the wilderness, or worse. But the climate scientists don't seem to be bothered by facts, but they make plenty of noise about how unscientific people who disagree with them are. This situation shows me that the climate scientists are denying reality.

This article lists twenty-five specific predictions that were wrong, and this list does not include all of the missed predictions. One the other side of the balance there should be a list somewhere of accurate predictions made by the climate change alarmists.

I just searched for accurate predictions, but this link was among the results: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ere-wrong.html. I also found this article, which appears to have been written by someone on a different planet: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-conservative/. This has some interesting things in it, but it does not reconcile past predictions with contrary data, except to say in one case that the relevant prediction was that the ice would be staying until 2070 or later. It also indicates that the IPCC sees its place as an advisor for situations where there is inadequate data.

As I see it, the problem is that the climate scientists have not been applying logic to the situation, but they have put their faith in computer software to model the climate. Computer models can work well, but the assumptions about the thing being modelled have to reflect actual facts, and there has to be adequate data. I don't know whether the data that is going into the models is adequate, nor can I tell whether the underlying assumptions are accurate, but the results have not been as good as a good model should have produced. The plateau in temperature over the last fifteen plus years was not predicted by any of the models that I have heard about.

When people who use the scientific method of testing hypotheses find that their hypotheses are consistently wrong, they usually throw the hypotheses out, or they adjust their hypotheses such that the results of tests match the actual data. There are other models of climate change out there that don't drag in extraneous data. I wonder why the climate scientists don't consider other sets of assumptions. Using assumptions that accord with actual facts and data might result in models that produce results that would be close to actual reality.

The present degree of accuracy of predictions by climate change alarmists is similar to the level of accuracy of believers in conspiracy theories. If climate scientists expect to be believed, then they will have to improve their accuracy. They just need to apply some basic logic.

Or should we simply regard anthropogenic climate change to be yet another conspiracy theory?