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.
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.
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.
Shit like this, wins you great points with the environmentalists, who want ammo to throw at polluters. I get it - pollution is shit. But we shouldn't use falsehoods to achieve an outcome even if it's a good outcome. 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.
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.
It's a strange world where scientists use the word 'skeptic' as a derogatory term.
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.
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.
Shit like this, wins you great points with the environmentalists, who want ammo to throw at polluters. I get it - pollution is shit. But we shouldn't use falsehoods to achieve an outcome even if it's a good outcome. 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.
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.
It's a strange world where scientists use the word 'skeptic' as a derogatory term.