Perfect for Climate Scientists

I propose a similar law for all climate scientists when they are presenting their computer model forecasts.  Actual legislation once proposed in New Mexico:

When a psychologist or psychiatrist testifies during a defendant’s competency hearing, the psychologist or psychiatrist shall wear a cone-shaped hat that is not less than two feet tall. The surface of the hat shall be imprinted with stars and lightning bolts. Additionally, a psychologist or psychiatrist shall be required to don a white beard that is not less than 18 inches in length, and shall punctuate crucial elements of his testimony by stabbing the air with a wand. Whenever a psychologist or psychiatrist provides expert testimony regarding a defendant’s competency, the bailiff shall contemporaneously dim the courtroom lights and administer two strikes to a Chinese gong…

In the case of New Mexico, this was meant as satire and eventually was removed from the final bill, but I think it would be a great adjunct for climate forecasts, better than a surgeon general's warning.



  1. LTMG:

    The august senators missed the part where psychiatrists and clinical psychologists will no longer be allowed to call themselves "Doctor". The new term of address is "Mage" and the prenominal is "Mg.". "Mage" will also appear on their diplomas in place of "Doctor".

  2. Mike C.:

    "Now I don't care who you are - that there's funny!"

    Larry the Cable Guy

  3. I Got Bupkis, Critic Extraordinaire:

    LOL. Nice. I'd vote for it, if it came to a referendum...

  4. Another guy named Dan:

    To distinguish the professions, Climate modellers should also be required to cast a handfull of ckicken bones onto the courtroom floor and then examine the entrails of a rabbit before making any statements about how the world climate will change in the any time span beyond tree days.

  5. Mark:

    @Another guy named Dan

    I like that - predicting climate change in Tree days! Why are we using this human centric notion of time anyway?

  6. Dan:

    Predicting the future of the earth's climate is far from simple, but it can be done. For instance, through scientific research we have it on very good authority that the world will enter another glaciation period in the next few thousand years.

    On a more cosmic scale, science can predict many other things, for instance that the Andromeda galaxy will collide with ours in several billion years, and that the sun will eventually become a red giant and fry most of the solar system.

    Now I admit that it's easier to predict something major like an ice age than it is to predict what the exact temperature of the earth will be over the next century. But my point is that science can predict the future, and that's no joke.

  7. I Got Bupkis, AGW Skeptic to the stars:

    >>> Now I admit that it’s easier to predict something major like an ice age than it is to predict what the exact temperature of the earth will be over the next century. But my point is that science can predict the future, and that’s no joke.

    No, it's not, but the notion that AGW is *science* is most certainly a joke.

    "The validity of a science is its ability to predict."

    By that criteria, AGW has almost no validity whatsoever.

    Drought in Australia? Nope, rains to floods instead.

    No Xmas Snow in England? Nope, record snowfalls two xmases in a row.

    Record hurricane strikes on the eastern/gulf seaboard? Nope, a single Cat 3 hurricane in six seasons.

    Increasing atmospheric temperatures in a specific, identifiable layer of the atmosphere? Nope. No temperature increases.

    Increasing deep ocean temperatures? Nope, despite a newer, far more accurate system deployed in 2003, the temps are slightly down.

    I could go on. Combined with all the other stuff, including but not limited to ClimateGate, AGW is a worthless excuse for a major socialistic public policy shift. It ain't "science".

    These idiots can't predict if it will snow tomorrow, but they think they can predict -- to the *tenth* of a degree!! -- what temperatures will be even 10 years from now, much less 100? Yeesh.

    Let them take KNOWN RAW HISTORICAL DATA, plug it -unaltered- into their climate models, and predict within 2 degrees, what the temperatures will be in a dozen randomly selected locations on a specific followup date in the very near future. THEN they'll have something that works and repesents "SCIENCE".

    Until then, they don't have bupkis, unlike me.

  8. dhlii:

    Given the sad state of so called "expert" witnesses today, this might be appropriate for any expert on any topic testifying before any court or legislative body representing any side to any dispute.

    Prosecution experts on bite marks, hair, ballistics, psychology, SIDS, shaken Baby Syndrome, .... have been exposed as charlatans little more than voodoo doctors - yet they are still testifying and to the same crap most everywhere.

  9. Another guy named Dan:

    Dan - I fully believe in science, and have a scientific education (engineering with minors in math and physics). It is because of that education and knowlege that I also understand the limitations of computational modeling.

    You can generate great models of systems dominated by linear behavior once the underlying "rules" involving the inputs, outputs, and transforms. The city of las Vegas is a monument to the fact that this is true even when inputs and transfors are stochastic in nature.

    However, it's been proven that the basic rules that govern weather and climate are not nice and linear. In fact, studies of the basic flow and thermodynamics of weather systems were one of the first contributors to the development of the concept of bound but chaotic systems.

    The modellers are left with a non-linear set of transforms with stochastic and unpredictable inputs, a pretty good recipe for divergent output sets based on parametric changes in input.

    In your case of colliding galaxies, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that the position x' of galaxy A relative to Galaxy B is a function of the position x at some time previous, plus a few other state variables, such as its initial velocity and accelleration. However, add even a single extra massive galaxy, and you get an uncalculatable mess as there are more degrees of freedom to the motion than there are equations to calculate them.

    IN climate science, no one has even devloped the functional equivilents of F = ma and F = (-G*m1*m2)/d^2 yet. There is no good way to express tomorrow's temperature as a function of today's tempreature with enough precision to justify extrapollating out decades through changing inputs and conditions.

  10. Dan:

    Another Guy,

    What you say makes lots of sense. Thanks.

    I'm just a little disappointed at the general disrespect for science and scientists that I see a lot on this blog.

  11. Brugle:


    I see a great deal of respect for science and scientists on this blog. Perhaps you mistake anthropogenic global warming alarmists for scientists. They do receive huge amounts of government money which is supposedly "for science", but they aren't scientists in the traditional (love of truth) sense.

  12. caseyboy:

    Dan, I'll let you borrow my tin foil hat and you'll be able to understand all these things.

    Another guy named Dan, excellent post. I can't wait to use that with my Texas Hold Em buddies.