In 1994, Naomi Oreskes authored an article in Science, correctly refuting climate models. Since then, the article has been cited by 2,443 papers – a huge number. Consider some excerpts:
“Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. … Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic.” (Abstract)
“Finally, we must admit that a model may confirm our biases and support incorrect intuitions. Therefore, models are most useful when they are used to challenge existing formulations, rather than to validate or verify them. Any scientist who is asked to use a model to verify or validate a predetermined result should be suspicious.” (concluding paragraph)
Yes, this is the same Oreskes who invented the “97%” meme in 2004 and has served as a mouthpiece of climate alarmism ever since. Does the dark side simply pay more or has it become the only side in academia?
Paywalled: Naomi Oreskes, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Kenneth Belitz, Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences
Kenneth Belitz, the third author, was (is?) Oreskes’ husband. If the dark side came after them, they might have felt really desperate.
Later, Oreskes interviewed William Nierenberg, the top climate scientist before the corruption and downfall of the climate science.