- 22 Dec 2023 19:19
#15299305
Right. That is why the evil, lying purveyors of anti-fossil-fuel nonscience cite bad models to justify their dishonest scare narratives, then ignore them when attempting to justify their claim that the models they have cited in their scare narratives are accurate. It's the old bait-and-switch con.
That is only what honest researchers are doing. Dishonest anti-fossil-fuel nonscientists are dishonestly citing bad models to justify their scare narratives, then cherry-picking better models to justify their claim that the models they cite are accurate. Bait-and-switch.
Anti-fossil-fuel nonscientists cite the bad models to justify their scare narratives, then only discard or underweight them when attempting to justify their claim that the models they have cited are accurate. Bait-and-switch.
wat0n wrote:Ugh, it is precisely by discarding bad models that science and forecasting both improve.
Right. That is why the evil, lying purveyors of anti-fossil-fuel nonscience cite bad models to justify their dishonest scare narratives, then ignore them when attempting to justify their claim that the models they have cited in their scare narratives are accurate. It's the old bait-and-switch con.
If there was so much dishonesty, why are researchers in the field advising to avoid using badly made models?
That is only what honest researchers are doing. Dishonest anti-fossil-fuel nonscientists are dishonestly citing bad models to justify their scare narratives, then cherry-picking better models to justify their claim that the models they cite are accurate. Bait-and-switch.
Why are they ringing the bell about the issue of bad models and the need to discard or at least underweight them before averaging?
Anti-fossil-fuel nonscientists cite the bad models to justify their scare narratives, then only discard or underweight them when attempting to justify their claim that the models they have cited are accurate. Bait-and-switch.