| > I don't know how anybody can take models like this seriously. It's about as valid as any of these economists models. Hell, it is partly an economic model. There is a huge variety of models spanning the gamut of complexity. This analysis is for one. It's about adding to the literature. > Reading the paper, they make a big deal about the out of sample testing - but given that there is a clear trend, is anybody surprised the model fits? Do you even need a fancy Bayesian hierarchical model or would a regression have predicted the same thing. Again, they probably don't need the Bayesian model, and regression models have been explored thoroughly in the literature. This is simply another tool, and another data point. > To top it off there's not mention of the CO2 cycle and the forces sucking CO2 out of the air they just assume the CO2 is cumulatively stasis in the air for perpetuity. I feel like a broken record, but there have been studies on this as well. Further, cumulative emmisions are an important indicator. See: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.abstract > This is the reason why there is growing discontent for climate science. We need it now more than ever, but the academic community just publishes bullshit and yells at us if we doubt the veracity of their models. Erm, this paper fully acknowledges the fact that it's a completely statistical model, and the many ways that it could be completely incorrect. If anything, blame Nature for publishing it, not the authors for doing the work. How many climate modeling papers have you read? They are not all statistically based (in fact many of the big oness are completely process based if that makes you happy). Much of the literature is aimed directly at addressing both uncertainty and error, and if you actually speak to anyone doing the work they will most certainly drone you half to death about things they wish they could fix/take into account. > We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predicted, and instead of saying, hey we aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone else who went all-in politically on these models have started a hate campaign against skepticism. Ugh, I'm not even going to address this one. Someone else did a good enough job already. > It's a strange world where scientists use the word 'skeptic' as a derogatory term. Let's be clear here - that term is a propaganda technique used to astroturf and whitewash. I agree, it's unfortunate terminology, but it's not the fault of the scientists. |