A “prediction” is a proposition that states the outcome of a statistical event. A prediction has a property that is called its “truth-value.” The “truth-value” is a variable which takes on the values of “true” and “false.” By virtue of the fact that it has a truth-value, a prediction can be false. That it can be false satisfies the condition called “falsifiability” for the associated model to be “scientific.”

A “projection” is a mathematical function that maps the time to the computed global average temperature. As such, a projection lacks a truth-value. The 3 conclusions follow that: A) a projection cannot be false, B) the associated model is non-falsifiable and, C) this model is not”scientific,” by the definition of “scientific.” A “scientific” model is one that provides “scientia,” the Latin word for “verifiable knowledge.”

]]>A forecast has a property that is called its “truth-value.” A truth-value is a variable which takes on the values of “true” and “false.” That a forecast can be false has the consequence that the associated model is falsifiable. That it is falsifiable satisfies a condition for the model to be “scientific,” under the philosophy of science.

According to the IPCC, its models make “projections.” A projection lacks a truth-value and it follows that the IPCC models fail to satisfy the falsifiability requirement.

]]>Milesworthy, you were the one who was making the claim that the peer review process adds a mark of excellence to the paper that has been peer reviewed.

Such a belief cannot be validated by real world experience.

]]>No, the comment is related to whether the conclusions drawn by the IPCC authors can be traced to the peer reviewed literature. It is no secret that just because a paper is peer reviewed does not mean it is correct (ideally it should be correct within the bounds of what is known) or that it will stand the test of time. ]]>

I hate it when that happens.

]]>