[mdisc]

Yeah it's kind of sad actually. I started reading this as serious piece and then sent it to a professor I had during my undergrad for a class on climate change. So embarrassing!!

The broad points about training data and non-linearities are important- but on a second pass it's hard to believe that people who spend their lives building GCMs don't think deeply about these challenges.

[jamez1]

I think the worrying thing is that it's not hard to believe, she's pointing out the breakdown of the scientific process.

She cops a lot of flack and hysteria, just for raising reasonable doubts!

If climate science is solid, then it shouldn't feel the need to vilify anyone who questions it. If it isn't solid then it should be subject to as much scrutiny as possible given the derived policy will have tremendous impacts to life.

[basurihn]

People who spend their lives building models in other sciences, say psychology, have missed gaps in their model... their whole approach, actually. Why is it inconceivable that climatology had equally glaring gaps?