Global Warming Cultists: Observational Evidence Is For Homos

Great catch by ArthurK. in the Headlines.

Empirical evidence? Observation? Measurements? Refining models to comport with observed fact rather than observed fact to model?

That's what we call "Old Science," grandpa.

You just don't get my generation, old man.

In short, the day lined up Phil Jones, oceanographer Andrew Watson, and physicist Mike Lockwood, the latter to argue that the sun couldn't possibly have caused recent warming. He was followed by the most impressive presentation from Henrik Svensmark, whose presentation stood out head and shoulders above anyone else. Why? For two reasons. The correlations he shows are remarkable, and don't need curve fitting, or funky statistical tricks. And he has advanced a mechanism, using empirical science, to explain them. At the other end of the scale, by way of contrast, the Met's principle research scientist John Mitchell told us:

"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful," adding, "Our approach is not entirely empirical."

Yes, you could say that.

In related news, you will be absorbed into The Body.

I'm not sure that's really a good analogy but I couldn't think of the Star Trek episode I actually meant to think of.

posted by Ace at 04:54 PM

| Access Comments