A infâmia travestida de ciência (3)

Via WUWT, Roger Pielke Sr. selecciona do artigo Tracing the upper ocean’s ‘missing heat’, de Caroline Katsman e Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, a seguinte passagem:

“Observations of the sea water temperature show that the upper ocean has not warmed since 2003. This is remarkable as it is expected the ocean would store that the lion’s share of the extra heat retained by the Earth due to the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. The observation that the upper 700 meter of the world ocean have not warmed for the last eight years gives rise to two fundamental questions:

1. What is the probability that the upper ocean does not warm for eight years as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise?
2. As the heat has not been not stored in the upper ocean over the last eight years, where did it go instead?

These question cannot be answered using observations alone, as the available time series are too short and the data not accurate enough. We therefore used climate model output generated in the ESSENCE project, a collaboration of KNMI and Utrecht University that generated 17 simulations of the climate with the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model to sample the natural variability of the climate system. When compared to the available observations, the model describes the ocean temperature rise and variability well.”

Incrível como num paper, previamente sujeito a peer review, se escreve semelhante coisa! Como os dados existentes não permitem formular uma explicação para a "falta de calor", constrói-se um modelo para explicar essa ausência mesmo sem dados para tal!

Este mesmo trecho mereceu também a atenção no blogue Coyote:

This is not just a climate problem. The White House studies on the effects of the stimulus were absolutely identical. They had a hypothesis that government deficit spening would increase total economic activity. After they spent the money, how did they claim success? Did they measure changes to economic activity through observational data? No, they had a model that was programmed with the hypothesis that government spending increased job creation, ran the model, and pulled a number out that said, surprise, the stimulus created millions of jobs (despite falling employment). And the press reported it like it was a real number.