Of bad models and nonscience

I know you’ll be shocked to discover that the AGW/CC models are not only useless predictors of future climate, they don’t even backtest properly:

“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

As I have previously written on several occasions, there is conclusive evidence that even a model which backtests flawlessly is not necessarily a functional predictive model. But the AGW/CC models don’t even function at that level! There was a time when I thought economics and finance were softer sciences than biology and climatology, but the more I’ve learned about the latter two disciplines, the more it’s become clear that they are far less rigorous than even the great financial whorehouses would find acceptable. Both biology and climatology presently contain significant aspects that are inherently unscientific by every definition of science except for Polanyi’s explanation of it as a social construction of a specific professional guild.