Guest post from Doug Proctor who has some interesting questions he’d like some help answering:
I’ve copied this from a comment I made on today’s Tisdale WUWT post wrt IPCC models on hemispheric ice changes. He noted the disconnect between observation and modelled mean outcome, but also addressed the complaint that you “cannot” compare observation to one specific outcome, even if it is the “mean” outcome. I’ve struggled with this idea myself, but also came to understand why: like in an Angus-Reid poll where they say the results are +/- 6%, 19 out of 20 times, there is a poll that would be done, if all polls were done, that gave (1 in 20 times) a result that’s significantly different from the mean, and significantly different from the ordinary noise (the +/- 6% in this example). Though a legitimate retort, it avoids the most important question a questioning mind might ask: does the observation, regardless of what it is, tell us anything about the fundamentals we thought were present, or is the observation truly an aberration? And if an aberration, can we shift from the aberration position (for polls, change the opinions of those polled) to the expected position (at least the mean)?