Because the quantity of data required for global warming models dwarfs that of nearly every other predictive modeling humanity has ever attempted...do you think scientists would dare question the validity of claims of "proof" similar to those of economists?
I recognized long ago while using Ansys to model the distortion of a piece of metal weighing 2 pounds under simple loading that numerical computer modeling has a scientific value equivalent to that of toilet paper. That is, it could be printed onto a piece of paper and then used to wipe your ass. But beyond that, any claim made with such a model is worthless for scientific purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the quantity of data required for global warming models dwarfs that of nearly every other predictive modeling humanity has ever attempted...do you think scientists would dare question the validity of claims of "proof" similar to those of economists? I recognized long ago while using Ansys to model the distortion of a piece of metal weighing 2 pounds under simple loading that numerical computer modeling has a scientific value equivalent to that of toilet paper. That is, it could be printed onto a piece of paper and then used to wipe your ass. But beyond that, any claim made with such a model is worthless for scientific purposes.