Anthony Watts, of Surfacestations.org, has an excellent post on his blog:
He mentions ten predictions based on science or scientific opinion or consensus, that didn’t come true. Obviously Scientism is wrong to blindly put faith in science. But lets think about this some more.
“They” (meaning “scientists” if it is even appropriate to refer to scientists as a body) used to think all sorts of things. It was respected scientific opinion for hundreds of years based not on the Bible, as commonly thought, but the expert opinion of the almighty Ptolemy and other secular Greek and Roman”scientists” if you will, that the earth was the center of the universe. Actually, there were earlier heliocentricists in many cultures, but they weren’t even close to Galileo and Copernicus’s level, as they were mostly philosophical rather than mathematical in their arguments. It is interesting to note that Geocentricists used complicated mathematical models which, of course, had to be “adjusted” to fit measurements, by adding “epicycles”
Note this bit:
“In part due to sometimes fantastic attempts to make the failed earth-centered model work, “adding epicycles” has come to be used as a derogatory comment in modern scientific discussion. If one continues to try to adjust a theory to make its predictions match the facts, when it has become clear that the basic premise itself should be questioned, one is said to be “adding epicycles”.”
I think warmers are guilty of something similar. Adding “flux adjustments” or other fudge factors. See these posts over at Climate-Skeptic:
I share the following sentiment, evidently said long ago by John Von Neumann about arbitrary parameters in models:
“Give me four parameters, and I can fit an elephant. Give me five, and I can wiggle its trunk.”
Enrico Fermi saved Freeman Dyson, self proclaimed “heretic” on Global Warming, from fruitless research on seemingly good models that weren’t based on reality but guesses. This is true of the climate models. They don’t know what will happen with clouds, and they can’t simulate them well anyway. So they “parameterize”. Additionally, they postulate a water vapor feedback that apparently doesn’t exist:
The fact is that the dire forecasts of the IPCC may or may not happen, but it wouldn’t be the first time “science” was, as “body” (mostly) “wrong”. So don’t act surprised absolutely don’t say nobody told you so. I’m here, right now, telling you so.
Speaking of predictions that were wrong, it seems Hansen continues to be wrong:
Perhaps I’m exaggerating, but look at this graphic here:
We are presently below the forecasts which assume CO2 at constant 2000 extrapolated levels extrapolated mostly correctly from 1988:
And the IPCC 1990 predictions weren’t so good either, but they are a bit better now, at least:
UK’s Met Office expects 2008 to be colder than they thought very likely two years ago, but not outside their range:
In the short term, these predictions have been Okay, but as we see with Hansen, they can be dismal failures in the long run. Let’s wait at least two or three years before we decide the models can be trusted and used for policy decisions. By then it just might be cooler than it was ten years ago. It might not. We shall see. We shall see whether its just weather or not. Just wait.
Greenhouse….It will happen in 2012!
Yeah, sure. Just like the Earth turned out to be six thousand years old. Oh wait, no it didn’t. Or just like it turned out that Pluto was a planet. Oh wait, no it wasn’t. Or that the world was flat. Oh wait, no it wasn’t. Or that the Medieval Warm Period was tiny and regional. Oh wait, no it wasn’t. Or that the scar on the face of mars were actually canals. Oh wait, they weren’t. Or last hurricane season, or the one before that, were real whoppers. Oh, wait, no they weren’t. Or that socialism was the future. Oh wait, no it wasn’t. Or that Eugenics could “save mankind”. Oh wait, no it didn’t. Or that….You know what, I’ve made my point. Scientific “Consensus” is a useless way to decide what’s right and what’s not. Scientists are human beings, and they have been just as often wrong as not.