Slashdot Mirror
Top Advisor To Australian Gov't Says Climate Change is a UN Conspiracy
An anonymous reader writes: Maurice Newman, the top business advisor to conservative Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, today published an opinion piece (paywalled) in which he claims, "It's a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models ... have been found ... to be in error." He goes on to write "This is not about facts or logic. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN." While Newman's 'skeptical' views have long been on record, it's unclear when he came to believe in this vast global conspiracy. Last year, the Abbott government removed Australia's Emissions Trading Scheme, and recently gave $4 million in funding to contrarian Bjorn Lomberg, while cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from science across the country.
Deniers will apparently just claim that "95%" of science is bogus if it disagrees with their pre-determined world view, causing cognitive dissonance.
How much you want to bet this lunatic is also a rabid fundamentalist following some ancient texts?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
There is no doubt that politicians love to use this a leverage to gain more power and control over the lives of the people.
on the fucking barby.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I've worked in a university and I know full well that getting 3 academics in a room generally means having at least 4 opinions on any given topic. Getting academics to agree on anything is like herding cats. I would almost like there to be a grand conspiracy of thousands of academics. It would be the proof I require that they _can_ be induced to agree on a topic ;p
-- Gaxx
See, there are batshit crazy politicians elsewhere as well!
...even if it was all wrong. What's the side-effect of reducing pollute? We're all less likely to die of cancer?
Woe is me--such a terrible world! Why did not we do the rational thing and spend all of that money on bombs?! Hindsight, I stab at thee!
"It's a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models ... have been found ... to be in error."
Ha ha ha. He used the notorious passive voice: "have been found". I wonder why?
Clues:
1. Does not specify who did the finding.
2. Provides no link to any actual information.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I'm all for more sustainable industry and living, but what annoys me greatly is when some rich oligarch tells us that we should start living more sustainably. Yet he flew from his third house in the south of France, in his private jet, to said conference to give the speech. Those scientists, politicians, and their associated cronies are never subject to the brunt of their legislative powers.
You'll especially never see a fortune 500 C-level exec taking the sustainable route when it comes to their living.
I'd be more inclined to take a lot of their positions if they actually practiced what the preached. A lot of what I actually see from these people is, "austerity for you and not for me." Why should I live like a pauper so my neo-feudal Lord can consume more nice things for less?.
Can I make an appeal that the comments NOT become dominated by the crazies from both sides? Everytime an article like this comes to Slashdot, the prophets of doom come on decrying how anyone not sufficiently panicked and desperate is an insane denier like the bonafide loonie in the article.
After that it devolves into 'proving' the other side is wrong by pointing at the false claims made by the nuts on the opposite 'side'.
sigh, I know it's naive, but it needs saying.
The UN is a menace, and before long you will have to take your Mark on the forehead! Read your Bible!
-proud AR-15 owner.
...It's a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models ... have been found ... to be in error....
Yes, most, if not all, of the climate are in error. They do not forecast the global climate with 100% accuracy.
.
They never will forecast the global climate with 100% accuracy. So they will always be in error.
However, they currently are accurate enough to forecast a future climate that has problems, and time is running out to prevent those problems from growing so large that they are all but irreversible.
The question is, do we start to address global warming now? Or do we wait until the models have 100% accuracy, at which time it will be too late to do anything about the problem.
If the President tried to set up something like that, Congress would refuse to fund it, Russia would Veto it, and the French would be against it just because the US was for it.
But even assuming it was possible for the UN to run a conspiracy, his own statements contradict him. Errors do not equal "Conspiracies", they equal incompetence. Conspiracies would involve intentionally falsified data - such as his personal statement that the UN is running a conspiracy.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
is a senile old fart, as countries go, with nothing to show for the future except additional sclerotic hardening of the ideology. Oh well, it was a good run while it lasted. Look East, young men.
I'm not surprised that Tony Abbott would have a conspiracy theorist like Maurice Newman as an advisor. He always struck me as being the real life version of Snidely Whiplash from the Dudely Do-Right segments of the "Rocky and Bullwinkle Show".
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
From http://www.smh.com.au/national...:
Newman has long sold himself as an intellectual maverick and independent thinker. "He gets mileage out of his climate scepticism," says a former senior Liberal. "It suits him to sustain it."
Newman's assertions - climate scientists call them "zombie arguments", because they keep on popping up - have all been comprehensively debunked, repeatedly and in detail, by national academies of science around the world, including the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the Royal Society of London and the Australian Academy of Science. Andy Pitman, a climate scientist from the University of NSW, tells me that, "Newman's arguments are so wrong they are inconsistent with some fundamental laws of physics."
the moldy old texts DO have relevance today!
the need to control, scare and dominate people has never changed; we needed it thousands of years ago and we still 'need' it today.
at least, that's WHY religion has not died. its the great lie told to the poor to stop them from overtaking the rich. "you'll get yours later; just let us have what we have and you'll be rewarded later."
mankind's biggest lie, I think. meant only to control and keep people in their place.
its not useful as a book of fact, but as a book of scary stories, its as 'relevant' today as it ever was.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
countries, the major ones anyway, gone completely mad? Well, I guess I shouldn't include Canada, or should I? This is in reaction to something, but I just don't understand what it is. This so-call fiscal conservative + anti-reason + racist + I've got mine so fuck you mind set really needs to go.
The secret is so well-kept, that only he knows it.
Has he _met_the UN?
CO2 levels started increasing during the industrial revolution when we started burning coal for fuel instead of wood.
This was long before the UN or even the League of Nations
Here you go.
Thanks! I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waiter!
According to http://www.un.org/en/members/ , Australia is part of the UN. I think it would then be more accurate to describe this conspiracy as an Australian Government conspiracy than an UN conspiracy.
The short story "The Marching Morons" by CM Cornbluth should be required reading, it would illuminating.
Get 4 academics/researchers in a room and each will have numerous, and maybe half a dozen "math models" each. Then they pick one they think might be "right." What is not discussed is that models are inherently modeling chaotic systems.
Chaotic systems can flip their path (trajectory or outcome if you will) based on things that occur in the 9th, 12th or 20th decimal point. This is well known to mathematicians.
So, are we to alter society and effectively drain its resources to try to accomplish something that is estimated but not proven to be correct? And does everyone share in the expense, or only the richest 6 countries. And if only the richest countries spend tons of money, can they get any desirable result with the rest of the world not paying attention, let alone money and methods, to "fix" whatever is estimated to help.
Climate is a morass best left to God.
Not sure what your idea of recent is, but I have some pretty old books on mathematical astronomy dating back to the 70's that all refer to the Earth as an oblate spheroid.
Actually, my first thought was that this guy went to the same church as I did growing up... Ever watch TBN and some of the nut-jobs on there in the 80's and 90's?
I think it was the result of low-science / lots of drugs (60's / early 70's) / life failure / turn to religion / freak out! They were saying it was all over in the 70's when satellites were launched into space. Somehow that was the beginning of the anti-Christ's return.
Yes, this is why I ran from those people when I was old enough...
One thing holds true, the planet can only support so much life before the life destroys the planet. That is just basic science. While we may not be there, it isn't unconceivable that we could be approaching that. Exponential growth of a species leads to such sudden crashes into proverbial Brick Walls.
Climate is just an easy way to relay the dangers to people who are self-absorbed (most of society). YOU WON"T BE ABLE TO BREATHE or FIND FOOD.. "Oh, I see now, that would be bad, right?" .. "I dunno, I'll look it up online to see how this impacts my social life!"
95% of climate models 'have been found to be in error'. Of course, if he's defining being in error as having any sort of mistake in the model, it's not only true but 5% low.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
I've been a green principalist for many, many years. Did not even have a car. Still don't fly. Vegetarian. Over the last few years, I've somehow changed. Now I own a car and a motorcycle. Use the shower that extra time.
Why?
Because now, I believe that climate change, oil peak, may be real, may be fake, but anyway, distract us from the real thing. The original Tesla free energy. He had the systems going about a hundred years ago. Then, his money supply was unplugged - the banker JP Morgan had interst in the oil business as well.
Here we are, still arguing over these bogus subjects, while we should have had free energy a long time ago.
And does everyone share in the expense, or only the richest 6 countries. And if only the richest countries spend tons of money, can they get any desirable result with the rest of the world not paying attention, let alone money and methods, to "fix" whatever is estimated to help.
Climate is a morass best left to God.
Which is why we can only stop it by having a single world government, able to make the decisions without the national infighting and disagreements. We need some kind of different order to the world. Perhaps we could encourage the UN to take on this role and push for this 'new world order' as it might be called. What could go wrong?
When in trouble,
Or in doubt,
Run in circles,
Scream and shout.
-- Heinlein
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Cutting down the rain forest and polluting waters where plankton grow drastically contributes to CO2 levels. As you burn you release it and take out some of the vegetation absorbing it. Another thing is all these air conditioners vs evaporative coolers. If you live in a dry climate you should use evaporative coolers. Water is a precious resource, but so is heat. When you use an air conditioner it heats the surrounding environment to cool the wanted area. An evaporative cooler uses the process of evaporation to cool and contributes to cloud formation(double fold cooling) and swap coolers are easy to repair anyone can do it. All this blacktop paving roads doesn't help either. The asphalt absorbs all the heat and releases it to the environment; cement does better in so many ways and lasts longer. Why not recycle? you are going to eventually(nature does this over a long period of time) and if it saves energy to do so it saves money in the manufacturing process and reduces the area needed for landfill. Why not use less energy? With all the advances in technology you can do so much more with so much less power. Update your appliances so that you get more production with less resources. Update your vehicles. If your car is more then ten years old (and not a classic) why spend another dime on it? Buy a new vehicle with a warranty and drive it into the ground, get every penny out of your investment. It only makes sense. I'd bet if we correct what I just mentioned it would improve things ten fold. Upgrading appliances and vehicles would also improve the economy (Win win win). I don't care if you believe in Global Warming or not. Personally I think the above things I mentioned have a greater effect then the garbage being spieled out of the anti-coal and anti-gas crowd. If we can figure out how to make it worth while for the areas with the rain forests and figure a better way not to pollute the waters needed for plankton and grow economy from doing it we would have all winners. Lets make this the golden age.
Firstly there is no "unproven" or "proven" theory in science. There are evidence for a theory or not. Secondely it is intrinsic in the nature of model to be an idealisation. We can't frigging model every molecule path or even every 1 liter of air over the earth to model climate. And there is the noise problem. In fact *all* physic problem beyond the two body problem are approximation. The question is : are those approximation good or bad ? Are the model representing sufficiently reality to allow a prediction or not. Scientific have presented enough evidence that the model they had represented temperature evolution enough to be a model representing enough of the reality to be used for prediction. Denier have nothing except "science is not perfect blahblahblah" and "scientist get money too ! blah blahlbha". And this is the point which is pathetic. Curiously it seems to happen far more often in the anglo saxon world (USA, australia, UK, etc...), than for example western latin and germanic europe.
As for that tidbit : " Human-made global warming: every sensible man should consider this a wild speculation at the moment".
Hu. no. We have evidence of anthropogenic global warming. It is much more than wild speculation. On the other hand "sun provocate GW" or "it is the vulcanoe" or "the model are all wrong" are BS which do not rise above speculation or terrible misudnerstanding of science.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Not sure what your idea of recent is, but I have some pretty old books on mathematical astronomy dating back to the 70's that all refer to the Earth as an oblate spheroid.
Usually, you divide the "recent" time by the lifetime of the object in question. So, if we're talking about Mayflies then recent is anytime within the last 18 minutes. Since we're talking about the Earth, then you divide the time since the very early 70s (45 years) by the age of the earth (6000 years) to get 0.7%, so, yeah. That's recent.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Einstein couldn't get a fair hearing during his time, either. Nothing has changed. He succeeded because his theories held up when everyone tried to disprove them. That's how it's supposed to work.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
The pitcher is 100ft away from you. The ball is travelling 100mph (160km/h) and appears to be heading for your head. You have a split second to make a decision. What do you do?
Are you going to wait until you know your model is 100% accurate? After all, a gust of wind can blow the ball off course. A bird could swoop or a meteorite could fall and deflect the ball. Those possibilities wouldn't be realized (or not) until they happen or the ball hits your head. What do you do?
Me? I'd dodge. The risk isn't worth the cost of dodging.
And yes, I am dodging. I've done the stuff that saves me money: efficient appliances and solar panels. I *hope* that everyone tries to do at least that.
I have starting doing stuff that doesn't save me money: planting trees, conserving forests, changing home heating systems, etc. These help the climate change and health problems, but result in a net loss in my financial account. I *don't* expect everyone to do this, just those that can do it, especially those who have made millions or billions from burning fossil fuels. You would expect people around you to clean up after themselves, right? Not solve their problems by dumping them on your yard?
No infighting from "World Government?" Wait until Indonesia, China & Russia vote against the US & dictate that the US eliminate half its use of coal and oil!
Boy won't we love that.
There is no doubt that AGW is real. Anybody that says otherwise with no clear proof is simply a blowhard. .
But that does not negate the fact that there is a UN conspiracy. The UN and far left are pushing for america and somewhat the west to drop emissions. Yet, all of the developed world, minus China, is less than 33% of emissions. China alone is more than 33% of all co2 emission. In addition, they surpass america in total emissions since 1860. And the one measurement that all ignore is that Europe has more than double America,s emissions for the last 1000 years, while China is more than double of Europe's.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I see what you did there... :)
Agreed, because perhaps the gods will make carbon dioxide and methane work differently in Earth's atmosphere than everywhere else in the observable universe so increasing their concentration won't cause anything to happen here.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels
Yes, I know that this is what both sides think. Now as far as the discussions of conspiracies by rich environmentalists go, please go to wikipedia and look up the wealthiest 100 companies. Then go and look at all the money being pumped into politics and explain to me how 90% of all the money and (and therefore power) is opposed to AGW and yet the conspiracy is supposedly about all the money being made by scientists and the potential green industries. Seriously, if you're going to claim a fucking financially motivated conspiracy, please explain the fact that all the real money in this game is in the anti-AGW camp. Conservative governments are passing laws opposing research and passing gag-rules on scientists. And the most likely conspiracy is a cabal of middle-class scientists sworn to unite the world under a UN world government? Un-fucking-believable.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Anyone who develops simulation models will tell you there are tradeoffs and unknowns that cause errors. The real issue is how significant are the errors. Weather models fall apart quickly as the predicted time frame get's large. Anyone trust the weather prediction for several weeks away? Global warming predictions are in the same vein because there are too many possible variations to the system. What the models can tell us is, given the things we know about, trends emerge.
What I find amazing is that people without understanding the limitations of the models will take them as fact or fiction when they are somewhere in-between. Because one weather model accurately predicted a hurricane when all others missed it everyone started using that model. The next hurricane was completely missed by that model, whoops!
Personally, I believe that there is substantial empirical evidence of GW even if the model predictions are off.
A guy doing this can kill more people than every psychopath in the world combined. Irresponsible lies about scientific research that fundamentally affects the future of the planet is like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater--well outside the bounds of what free speech should protect because it risks mass casualties. This guy should be lined up against a wall and shot.
or a fool. I'l even let you choose.
instead of actual technical journals shows that the likelihood of your claims to be legitimately skeptical to be quite minimal.
I'll be dead and won't have to own up to being wrong or have to actually accept the consequences of my self-centered ignorance.
to do nothing that would adversely effect you and require yourself to clean up after yourself. Must be just luck that, to you at least, the best course of action is exactly the same thing that lets you continue to piss on everyone else for your own self-serving benefit.
How about both?
To be fair, the UN is actually better than most of the governments that compose it. And it *does* appear to have reduced wars. That's pretty good for something that was originally set up as a military alliance to allow "allies" who didn't trust each other to work together.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There is a (in my opinion) intriguing difference between what the books of the Bible say, and what is taught about them in fundamentalist churches. The disparity is actually very large. But the fundamentalist tendency to reject the facts, even about their own Bible, is truly amazing.
Here, for example, are some fun, readily-proven, facts about what the Bible says:
The word "Trinity" (a core theological concept to Fundamentalism) does not occur in the Bible ever, in any translation. The verses from which this concept is inferred are both scant and sketchy.
The "Holy Spirit" is a mistranslation of "Holy Breath," and in the Greek texts it is *never* referred-to as a person (the words used can equally well mean "it"). The translation to English of "He" is very dubious.
The word "Lucifer" (another core theological concept) doesn't occur *at all* in most translations of the Bible. It should not; it is a Latin word, which doesn't make sense in an English Bible. The relevant text was written in Hebrew, and is a prophesy about the fall of a clearly-identified human king (this is obvious to anyone who reads the whole chapter rather than two verses taken out of context). The popular English translation of "Morning Star" is particularly interesting, since in the book of Revelations, Jesus directly states "I am the Morning Star." Figure THAT out!
Jesus, being famous (in part) for establishing the doctrine of Hell in Christian theology, never once uttered the word "Hell". Aramaic, the language he spoke, didn't even have such a word. He did spend some time making metaphorical references to the valley of Gehenna, which Jerusalem used as the city dump, and which was later mistranslated as "hell" by very dubious logic.
So, the most foundational and distinguishing characteristics of Christian theology aren't even in the Bible...one must translate it strangely and make strange inferences on top of that to arrive at something sort of like what mainstream Christianity teaches.
This group also loves to insist that the Bible never contradicts itself, despite the fact that it clearly does in numerous places. They have a neat trick for resolving these contradictions....whenever two verses seem to say opposite things, one is "interpreted in the context of the other," such that one verse is seen as not really saying what it plainly says. Once you change what a verse says to what you think it actually means, then the contradiction is resolved. For example:
1 Timothy 4:10 "...we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially those who believe."
It does not say "who only saves believers." It clearly says the opposite....until you change it to resolve a contradiction.
I'll stop now. Flame on.
I wish I could find it, but there's a comic with a bunch of scientists debating climate and one of them says something to the effect of,
"Wait a minute! What if we reduce pollution, create a whole new industry of well-paying high-tech jobs, achieve energy independence, and it's all for nothing?"
To be fair, the UN is actually better than most of the governments that compose it. And it *does* appear to have reduced wars.
Correlation rather than causation. They're roughly as helpful as the league of nations which didn't help much. It's nuclear weapon that have reduced large scale warfare. It's harder to decide to kick over your neighbors ant hill when they might vaporize your children.
http://blogs.scientificamerica...
Quote: "I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer." "To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers." If these Utopian statists get their way, say goodbye to freedom and liberty.
Obviously no one wants global warming. If the UN was involved in some crazy sort of conspiracy to take over the world just why would they want a severely damaged world? If I wanted to take over the world I would want every inch of it to be lovely, healthy and productive. Many people simply can not face the reality that global warming is going to slam us really hard. All of our best efforts can only take a bit of the edge off of the tribulations that warming and rising seas will heap upon us.
One thing holds true, the planet can only support so much life before the life destroys the planet. That is just basic science. While we may not be there, it isn't unconceivable that we could be approaching that. Exponential growth of a species leads to such sudden crashes into proverbial Brick Walls.
Climate is just an easy way to relay the dangers to people who are self-absorbed (most of society). YOU WON"T BE ABLE TO BREATHE or FIND FOOD.. "Oh, I see now, that would be bad, right?" .. "I dunno, I'll look it up online to see how this impacts my social life!"
So your admitting as far as your concerned, Apocalyptic Global Warming Scaremongering is just a guise to get the sheeple to go into lemming-mote and rush over the clift into the abyse as a sacrifice to Gaia?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Get 4 academics/researchers in a room and each will have numerous, and maybe half a dozen "math models" each. Then they pick one they think might be "right." What is not discussed is that models are inherently modeling chaotic systems.
Chaotic systems can flip their path (trajectory or outcome if you will) based on things that occur in the 9th, 12th or 20th decimal point. This is well known to mathematicians.
So, are we to alter society and effectively drain its resources to try to accomplish something that is estimated but not proven to be correct? And does everyone share in the expense, or only the richest 6 countries. And if only the richest countries spend tons of money, can they get any desirable result with the rest of the world not paying attention, let alone money and methods, to "fix" whatever is estimated to help.
Climate is a morass best left to God.
Climate is not chaotic, at least not in the way you are thinking. The temperature on the Earth is more of an energy balance problem.
Very well put. Not sure why you posted as AC, what you said is very insightful.
If the results match your prediction, then yes that's good evidence, do it a few more times and we've got something serious to talk about.
You mean like climate models correctly predicting phenomena before the phenomena was observed in nature, such as, "Stratospheric cooling", "polar amplification", and the global cooling effect from a large volcanic eruption ( AKA Mt Pinatubo). There are dozens of "blind predictions" for those who care to actually look at the forecasting (and hindcasting) skill of aggregate climate models.
At the end of the day, all of science is a model, the question is why do people who obviously haven't looked at climate models doubt their utility? Why do others doubt the evolutionary model of life, or the tectonic plate model? - Those kind of doubts do not come from scientific skepticism, they come from industry funded propagandists such as the heartland institute and are then disseminated through the opinion pages of papers such as the wall street journal.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The relativity of wrong.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It seems obvious that this man has gotten a massive cash influx from private interest groups headed by manufacturing concerns. It should buy him plenty of tinfoil hats, but not his dignity back!
So what do the 5% that are not in error predict?
University of Western Australia was originally slated as the site for the Bjorn Lomborg "think tank" for Climate change denial.
It has now decided to hand back the $4m of funding.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
"Now it would be very remarkable if any system existing in the real world could be exactly represented by any simple model. However, cunningly chosen parsimonious models often do provide remarkably useful approximations. For example, the law PV = RT relating pressure P, volume V and temperature T of an "ideal" gas via a constant R is not exactly true for any real gas, but it frequently provides a useful approximation and furthermore its structure is informative since it springs from a physical view of the behavior of gas molecules. For such a model there is no need to ask the question "Is the model true?". If "truth" is to be the "whole truth" the answer must be "No". The only question of interest is "Is the model illuminating and useful?". (Box, G. E. P. (1979), "Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building", in Launer, R. L.; Wilkinson, G. N., Robustness in Statistics, Academic Press, pp. 201–236.)
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
"The Abbott government’s chief business adviser, Maurice Newman, has warned that Australia is ill prepared for global cooling owing to widespread “warming propaganda” in his latest critique of mainstream climate science. Newman, who chairs the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council, said there is evidence that the world is set for a period of cooling, rather than warming, leading to significant geopolitical problems because of a lack of preparedness. Adam Bandt, deputy leader of the Greens, said Newman’s comments were an “embarrassment to the government”. http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
So apparently the secrets of the New World Order are not something the public should freely know. You have to pay to know "the truth" as he believes. *FAIL*
http://about.me/jimm.pratt
I believe in science, but I do wonder about the accuracy of climate scientist's models. I remember reading Richard Feynman's account of a scientist's rat-in-a-maze experiment - "STILL, the rats could tell". It detailed how hard it is to control all the variables in an experiment - in that case, to make sure the rats were operating under the rules you thought they were. The same principles would surely apply to climate models, where the system they're modelling is enormously more complex.