No one said it straight out yet. Retroactively altering your model to fit predictions is not science. It is the opposite of science. Climatologists are the opposite of scientists.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Alrenous @BeigeShiba
fit *data* you mean? I'm not sure I've ever seen someone come up with *predictions*, and *then* try to come up with a model for that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
that's the clue they're not really predictions but conclusions masquerading as predictions.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @schakalsynthetc @sglity_ and
the steps, in order 1. decide what "should" happen 2. come up with model in which what you've already decided "should" happen is exactly what is predicted 3. fit data to model by any means necessary it's the exact reverse of scientific method.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
4. (3.1?) When actual measurements contradict the model, adjust the model with random BS until they don't, then claim the random BS is fact because the model now 'predicts' the measurements.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.