Speaking of Not Responding, Ladies and Gentlemen, I Give You the Suspicious0bservers

A couple days ago, I left the following comment, which has yet to be approved, on a Suspicious0bservers video:

This is the graph image I linked to in the comment:

Now, there are only about 1,000 "sciency"-sounding, cherry-picked points in that video which have little or nothing to do with climate change, and certainly don't add up to the nonsensical conclusions that Ben Davidson, narrator and owner of the YouTube channel, draws. For instance, at this point in the video, he claims CO2 is NOT the main driver of the observed modern warming, and, instead, our planet's diminishing magnetosphere combined with high solar activity are the real climate change culprits, since, according to him, we had less protection from the Sun's radiation at the same time we witnessed temperatures rising after the Industrial Revolution. While it's true the magnetosphere has been and is weakening slightly, here's the problem with teaming it up with the Sun to make some new global warming dynamic supervillain duo: the magnetosphere prevents charged particles from reaching the Earth, not visible light and infrared energy—that is, the electromagnetic radiation which has interacted with greenhouse gases to cause the greenhouse effect historically and modern climate change more recently. In other words, a weakened magnetosphere may cause more intense auroras at the poles, or endanger satellites and electronics, but it won't let in more sunlight, brighten the daytime hours, and create a spike in the sunglasses industry. Is anyone anywhere complaining of global brightening? When the magnetosphere strengthens again, which it will, will days grow darker? NO!

Almost all of the Suspicious0bservers' videos are like this. A classic case of "Jaezuz, there's so much wrong here, where do I even begin?" So I thought I'd pick just one mistake, rather than frighten Ben into blocking a comment with a barrage of counterpoints (besides, my personal ethics are against flooding...yes, even when the target is a flood of misinformation), but it seems like Ben is a little too skittish to let even one strong challenge fly on his channel. Click on the link to the video above, toggle the comments filter to "Newest first", and I'm pretty sure you'll see my comment hasn't been approved yet.

I even went so far as to tweet at him yesterday to no avail:

Will Ben @TheRealS0s approve this comment/challenge to the claims in his YouTube video? http://t.co/tnABSqhfb7 pic.twitter.com/7qvmLSajrp

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) October 4, 2015

So how about it, Ben? Gonna allow some criticism and debate on your channel? Or are you going to block and hide from it?

Ignorance That Just Won't Die

The sources for the video (most of which are of the shambling, undead, denier variety):

• The Scientific American article and NOAA's infographics.
• "Cold year: 2014 USA temperature record lows outpace record highs nearly 2-1."
• "Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US."
• "Global Warming Alert! 2014 coldest year on record."
• "Winter 2014 set to be 'coldest for century' Britain faces ARCTIC FREEZE in just weeks."
• "US Midwest Having Their Coldest Year On Record."
• "Summer 2014 is the coldest in a decade."
• "Coldest U.S. winter in a century."
• "UK weather: Is Britain braced for worst winter in 100 years?" (Note: I included these UK articles, because the fear seems to be that frigid eastern US weather will flow or be replicated across the Pond somehow...here's the UK Met Office's counter-assertion for anyone interested.)
• "Settled Science Update."
• "US Short On Greenhouse Gases Tonight."
• "US Temperatures Plummeting At Seven Degrees Per Century."
• "All 50 states have below freezing temperatures."

(Note: the images are from various news agencies that can be found by searching for "buffalo ny snow," and, well, "zombie," so they will not be sourced.)

"Even the IPCC Says..."

The IPCC recently released its latest Synthesis Report, so you can expect those in the deniosphere will be falling over themselves to win awards for making the most paranoid and ignorant remarks about it (because obviously the best way to rig elections is to produce climate assessments, dontchyaknow, or so says my giant tin foil hat, and flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health, violent conflicts, etc., are all ever so dull and boring anymore...just ask those whose lives are negatively impacted). That kinda brute force denier stupidity is just a given at this point, but there's a more insidious and underhanded approach they employ every now and then which involves trying to make it look like the IPCC itself refutes man-made global warming. It usually starts with the following four words or something similar...

"Even the IPCC says..."

Allow me to translate what starting a statement this way really means.



To give you an idea what I mean here, I'm gonna make some predictions based on previous personal observations about how deniers will misrepresent the report's findings. Here goes...

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'It is virtually certain that globally the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.'"

What the report actually says:

It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased in the range of 1.2% to 1.8% per decade (range of 0.13 to 0.20 million km^2 per decade) between 1979 and 2012.'"

What the report actually says:

For the [Arctic] summer sea ice minimum, the decrease was very likely in the range of 9.4% to 13.6% per decade (range of 0.73 to 1.07 million km^2 per decade) (see Figure 1.1). It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased in the range of 1.2% to 1.8% per decade (range of 0.13 to 0.20 million km^2 per decade) between 1979 and 2012. However, there is high confidence that there are strong regional differences in Antarctica, with extent increasing in some regions and decreasing in others.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'Since 1993, [rates of sea-level rise] for much of the Eastern Pacific are near zero or negative.'"

What the report actually says:

Rates of sea-level rise over broad regions can be several times larger or smaller than the global mean sea-level rise for periods of several decades, due to fluctuations in ocean circulation. Since 1993, the regional rates for the Western Pacific are up to three times larger than the global mean, while those for much of the Eastern Pacific are near zero or negative.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations.'"

What the report actually says:

For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (compare Box 1.1 Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations show a smaller warming trend than observed). Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. For the longer period from 1951 to 2012, simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'Due to a low level of scientific understanding, there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades.'"

What the report actually says:

Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979. Anthropogenic influences likely contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Due to a low level of scientific understanding, however, there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades.

In the upcoming days and weeks, keep your eyes peeled for deceptive denier cherry-picking along these lines, because I can nearly guarantee it's on the way.

Despite Claims to the Contrary, Populartechnology.net Is a Denier Site

Back in February, the thinly-veiled denier site populartechnology.net posted an update to its attempted takedown of the pro-AGW consensus findings of studies like Oreskes 2004, and Cook et al 2013.

A few members of the scientific community apparently sung the praises of what the site admits is not a scientifically-rigorous effort but merely a cherry-picked list of papers it really, really likes (in the rebuttal section, it says, "The list is a resource not a scientific argument. The purpose of the list is to show that peer-reviewed papers exist that support skeptic arguments and to be used as a resource to locate these papers."), for instance...

"Wow, the list is pretty impressive ...It's Oreskes done right."

- Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist

And the blog post even includes a seeming endorsement from John Cook himself, and then goes on to label him as a "cartoonist," which a lot of deniers really, really like to do.

"I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..."

- John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science

One might assume after posting these two bellyaching rebuttals to criticisms of the list...

Criticism: Authors on the list are not scientists.

Rebuttal: Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list.

Criticism: Authors on the list are not climate scientists.

Rebuttal: Climate science is a very broad discipline that includes scientists from a variety of backgrounds.

...that the site could at least attribute to Cook his proper credentials: the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

But since the full quote was not even posted I guess I'm asking for a bit much, eh?

Anyway, curiosity got the better of me, so I decided to do my own parsing/analysis of poptech's study list. My Java code is here, if you are interested, and these are the results.

Before I get into explaining my take on the results, let me first address further diaper-wetting protests in the rebuttal section of the poptech post...

Criticism: Papers on the list are outdated.

Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory.

That's swell and all, poptech, but, see, the problem is Oreske 2004, and Cook et al 2013, two studies with which you apparently aspire to compare and contrast your own, based on the quotes you included above your list, did not look further back than 1991. Had they done so, papers like Arrhenius's would have been tallied on their side, mmmmkay? So if you wish to do as they have done but with your anti-AGW blinders firmly in place so only the papers you like get selected, unlike the more open-minded approach of the other two studies, well, at the very least honor the same publication date range they did.

Criticism: Most of the papers come from a small amount of authors.

Rebuttal: Cherry picking the most prolific authors as representative of the entire list is misleading.

This honestly made me laugh out loud. So lemme see if I got this straight...an admittedly non-scientific, cherry-picked list of denier-friendly studies that everyone in the deniosphere still insists on crowing about and waving around as "representative" of peer-reviewed publications in the climatology field isn't misleading. Nope, it's only pointing out the frequency of the names of usual denier suspects on that list that's misleading.

Oooooooookkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyyy then.

Here are the highlights of what my Java code spit out:

The number of studies published before 1991 = 119
The number of studies published during and after 1991 = 1368
The total number of studies = 1487

The author credit tally...
Sherwood B. Idso 76 credits.
John R. Christy 43 credits.
Richard S. Lindzen 35 credits.
Nicola Scafetta 27 credits.
Robert G. Currie 27 credits.
Patrick J. Michaels 26 credits.
Robert C. Balling Jr. 26 credits.
Bruce A. Kimball 26 credits.
Roy W. Spencer 24 credits.
Ross McKitrick 23 credits.
David H. Douglass 22 credits.
Henrik Svensmark 19 credits.
Willie H. Soon 19 credits.
Craig Loehle 19 credits.
Nils-Axel Morner 17 credits.
Paul C. Knappenberger 16 credits.
O. M. Raspopov 16 credits.
Indur M. Goklany 16 credits.

119 papers were published before 1991, so they get tossed out on principle. And I mean, Jaezuz Fooking Cheeeeroist, if the US military made a set of most-wanted denier playing cards, you're looking at the royal end of each suit. Click on some of the links if you wish to find out why.

And one final dope slap for poptech. This crap ain't fooling anyone.

Criticism: Popular Technology.net is an AGW "denier" website.

Rebuttal: This is a dishonest ad hominem as we believe there is a scientific hypothesis called anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Cute and everything, poptech, but your rebuttal is as dishonest as creationists calling evolution a "theory." What you won't admit for some curious and cowardly reason is that you don't believe AGW is an established scientific fact like evolution. Nice try, but I'm afraid the verbal escape route you just tried to set up for yourself here has been dynamited and permanently closed off. Gee, sorry about that.

Steven Goddard, the Sad, Sad, Little Troll, Part 2

Steven Goddard, Nitpicking Denier P. I.

"Two years ago, I caught NSIDC pulling a fast one in their sea ice graphs. A few hours before the Arctic extent line was about to cross the 1979-2000 mean line, they changed their plotting scheme to use a five day trailing average for the current ice and a nine day trailing average for the climatology. This moved the extent line away from the mean line, and narrowly avoided the immediate death of the death spiral.

I pointed out to them they can’t do that because it puts a two day relative shift in the data – and after arguing with me about it they admitted they can’t do that and fixed it the next day."

He caught them pulling a fast one, and told them they couldn't do that, dontchya know?

Some actual references/correspondences showing that this back-and-forth really happened, rather than his hearsay assertion two years later, would be nice (no, I'm not doing him the favor of scouring his archives), but let's cue up the hotshot private investigator music for him, anyway...



Too bad he couldn't catch the Arctic pulling a fast one back in 2012 before it decided to set a sea ice minimum record. But I guess if Steven Goddard, Nitpicking Denier P. I., weren't on the job policing the NSIDC, the Arctic would have tried to get away with even less sea ice that year, ya know?

Steven Goddard, the Sad, Sad, Little Troll, Part 1

Steven Goddard would like to remind you once again that his "grasp" of science is so infantile he does not know the difference between one scientist and a consensus, and foundational and frontier research.

"In 1950, the scientific consensus was that continents don’t move, and that there was life on Mars"

His "understanding" is so abysmal that one MIT researcher's analysis amounts to a consensus in geology for Goddard, and decades before we reached the Moon or had a meaningful human presence in space, let alone telescopes in orbit around the Earth, Sun, and Mars and rovers on the surface of Mars, which make robust observations that negate our uninformed best-guesses about the possibility of life there, or years before we even conceived of the field of astrobiology, to him, this nascent level of astronomical study in the 50's somehow equates to what we know about the interaction between climate and our emissions today thanks to well over a century of climatological research.

Goddard displays the same pathetic inability to distinguish between established scientific fact and groundbreaking research here as Rush Limbaugh often does in his absolutely worthless misinformation-fest of a radio show. In fact, wallowing in this brand of blockheaded, willful ignorance seems to be the preferred behavior of most if not all science deniers.

I suppose I should be thankful, however, because as far as sources of unbelievable, head-slapping denier stupidity are concerned, he's the gift that keeps on giving.

Funny Thing about Steven Goddard's Conspiracy Paranoia...

Steven Goddard is the author of a blog called Real Science, and a conspiracy theorist nutcase. He believes that, because the GISS surface temp records for the US have been updated since 1999 (something that's done quite often and openly with good reason and clear public disclosure), the Obama administration is sending in the Matrix agents to make it happen. From his batshit insane blog post:

"These alterations are being made by government employees with a strong vested interest in global warming, who should recuse themselves because of their overt conflict of interest. Their boss, the President of the United States, has made it clear that he will not accept any data which does not promote global warming theory. That is pretty strong motivation to generate warming data."

Yup, you read that right, folks. NASA-GISS is generating false warming data because Obama likes that. I guess Bush liked false surface temps, too, hence the 2001 updates included in his animated gif image above.

Once again here at whac-a-troll, you probably find yourself, like me, regretting having only one face to palm.



And the evidence Goddard offers to prove that this conspiracy exists...?



When Goddard says a conspiracy exists, PRESTO!, it exists. Nice superpower, if you can develop it. Musta been bitten by a radioactive ufologist, or something.

Weird thing about this conspiracy-declaring superpower of his is that NASA corrects its data all the time in other areas of research, and, in these instances, Goddard never reaches for his cape to swoop in, rescue everyone from the evil presidential mind control and puppet-mastery at work behind them, and save the paranoid day.



Why, the diabolical research agency once had the temerity to attempt updating precipitation data too!

The GPM mission will provide unprecedented data on rain and snowfall. The science instruments on the GPM Core Observatory will provide data that will yield the greatest clarity on rain and snow yet gathered from orbiting spacecraft.

And the supervillains at NASA also threatened the safety of the world by drastically altering X-ray astronomy data!

The Legion of Aeronautics and Space Doom once even dared to embark upon improving data and understanding of space weather!

SDO is the most advanced spacecraft ever designed to study the sun and its dynamic behavior. It will provide better quality, more comprehensive science data faster than any NASA spacecraft currently studying the sun and its processes.

My goodness, the shockingly dishonest and deceptive manipulation of data at NASA never ends! And, gosh, I wonder why these other examples of data correction bother Goddard not at all. Hmmmm, I'm oh so terribly stumped about that.

On a less sarcastic note, Texas state climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon provides a rather plain and obvious explanation which requires no conspiracy theory at all.

“It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves. If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the adjustment process.”

But, don't worry, I imagine Goddard explains away all of the experts who disagree with him by saying they are just unwitting (and sometimes witting) agents of the vast climate change conspiracy. Obama's little foot soldiers. Gee, where have we heard such circular argumentation before?

This data-cooking delusion really is Goddard's personal Roswell or Area 51.



There are strange craft flying around out there, so...so aliens! The US surface temperature numbers have changed, so...so evil government forces! In both cases, the logical, pedestrian explanation is discarded, because it doesn't fit the cockamamie conspiracy narrative.

There Goes the Last Shred of Judith Curry's Credibility

David Rose is an abject moron, and the Daily Fail is a rag. We all know this, so no surprise that Rose and the Fail are still working the Antarctic sea ice canard like a footballer rolling around on the ground faking an injury. In other words, much ado about nothing.



Refutations of Fail trash and fake science pieces are hardly even necessary anymore, but if you're interested, Nuccitelli provides a thorough takedown.

However, what still shocks me (and I suppose it shouldn't at this point) is that Judith Curry has so little shame she would eagerly encourage and contribute to such rubbish.

First of all, if David Rose calls you for an interview, hang up. Have some self-respect, huh?

Secondly...

[Curry] said it was becoming increasingly apparent that long-term cycles in ocean temperatures were responsible for a significant proportion of the ice decline in the Arctic – a process that may be starting to reverse.

Ummm, no. Just no. Curry expects us to take her seriously after spouting this specious crap for David Rose of the Daily Fail?!

And, lastly...

Prof Curry also revealed that because of the ‘pause’, in which world average temperatures have not risen for more than 16 years, the Arctic ice decline has been ‘touted’ by many as the most important evidence for continued global warming.

Could Curry really have her head shoved that far up her ass? Is this even possible? Or did Rose misquote her? I sure hope for her sake she's been misquoted, because the warming of the Earth over the past 16 years would be what many tout as the most important evidence for continued global warming.

You can hang up on Rose next time, or "wave" bye-bye to your credibility, Judith.

Bjørn Lomborg Is a Troll and a Shill

Last year, Bjørn Lomborg posted another miserably misinformed article.

In it, he posts a broken link (I'm thinking maybe intentionally so) to a Journal of Industrial Ecology study, and then proceeds to misrepresent its findings:

A life-cycle analysis shows that almost half of an electric car’s entire CO2 emissions result from its production, more than double the emissions resulting from the production of a gasoline-powered car...If the car is driven less than 32,000 miles on European electricity, it will have emitted more CO2 overall than a conventional car.

Less than 32,000 miles. Oh, brother. Can you hear everyone's eyes rolling, Lomborg, you half a demented and desperate shill?

The 2011/12 Leaf's battery was initially guaranteed by Nissan for eight years or 100,000 miles (160,000 km)[39][40]

Anyway, here's the properly-formed link to the full article, and if Lomborg is too incompetent to form simple anchor tag links, maybe he should think about keeping his blockheaded commentary off the Web.

Let's delve a bit into the study, and I think we'll see rather quickly why Lomborg probably doesn't want you to actually find/read it, and instead wants you to take his twisted version of it as reality.

Here's the low-ball estimate from the study:

We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km (~93,200 miles).

You can get larger decreases if your electric car lasts longer, but let's just stick with these numbers. So...there are approximately 1 billion cars on the planet (the vast majority of which are fossil fuel-powered), and, if, for convenience sake, we assume an EPA passenger car's annual output for them, and that their CO2 dwarfs the other gases they emit in both weight and impact, they each emit about 9,700 lbs of critical GHGs each year. Sure, there are minor difficulties in projecting American passenger car numbers onto the world vehicle population, and in neglecting the other tailpipe gases, as well as air, rail, and marine transportation, but for our purposes here they are far from show-stopping, and certainly less so than the stupid assumptions Lomborg made in his piece.

OK, let's do some simple math...

1,000,000,000 * 9,700 lbs/yr = 9,700,000,000,000 lbs/yr or about 4.4 gigatonnes per year (Gt/yr)

With an estimated global output of 31Gt CO2 in 2010, that puts our back of the envelope vehicle discharge calculations at about 14% of total annual human emissions. Hmmmm, a bit inflated, considering the means of transportation that were left out, but not too terrible awful bad.

That means if we could be visited by a magic wand-waving miracle, the likes of which Lomborg actually seems to be arguing we wait for (more on that below), and have all the vehicles on our planet supernaturally transformed into electric cars today, when we are still hitching and sputtering away from an addiction to fossil fuels largely due to the stifling political influence of well-funded naysayers, using the lower estimates of the very study Lomborg himself tried linking to, we reduce global CO2 emissions by 0.44Gt to 1.1Gt each year. And if we double the life expectancy of the electric vehicles, according to the journal article, we get something more like a 1.3Gt reduction annually. Going from 31 to 29.7 Gt/yr by transforming a sector that is only 13-14% of our total GHG production is not worth doing, Lomborg? Come again? And if we somehow figure out other ways to similarly reduce outputs in the other four major GHG-producing sectors (agriculture, industry, energy, and forestry) in the EPA graph I linked to above, then we as a society are down to about 25 Gt/yr. I'll take that as a present-tech, "what's available to us now," starting-point reduction scenario any day.

Sure, the study rightly brings up environmental issues surrounding the EV supply chain, but it also mentions the increased CO2 reductions we will enjoy once we get serious about improving our electrical infrastructure and means of production, because, again, these are today's numbers, which will improve dramatically in the future, as long as we don't follow Lomborg's dumb-balls advice and abandon the effort. Notice that the study, unlike Lomborg, doesn't bellyache about the investment required until it seems the idea is to just sit around until the Electric Vehicle Fairy shows up and waves his or her magic wand.

Someday, the electric car will, indeed, be a great product...But lavish subsidies today simply enable an expensive, inconvenient, and often environmentally deficient technology.

There ya have it, folks. According to Lomborg, EVs are such a great idea we should make no effort now to facilitate their popular usage.

Wot?

And "lavish subsidies" my ass. They are nowhere near those enjoyed by fossil fuel companies due to the fact that we taxpayers open our wallets to clean up their messes.

As usual, if you want a completely lopsided, cherry-picked version of the facts, read Bjørn Lomborg's Slate blog.

And shame on Slate for providing a platform for such a biased nitwit to spread misinformation that so clearly benefits one rapacious industry.

Never Meta Cherry Pick They Didn't Like

Surely, you are familiar with the intellectually-dishonest practice of "cherry-picking." If you're not, Shirley, then take a moment to brush up here. With nearly equal certitude, I will assume you have seen deniers cherry-pick the bits of climate science they like, while sticking their fingers in their ears over the stuff they don't like. Of course, even the stuff that's cherry-picked often turns out to be flat-out wrong and/or incomplete research, because they're ignorant idiots who fall for just about any unscientific nonsense, but that's not important right now (you can find the appropriate, overused Airplane! clip on YouTube yourself this time, so there).

What I'm gonna bet you have not considered is that climate deniers' fascination with climate science alone is in fact a massive cherry pick. Let's call it a meta cherry pick, to coin a term which should indicate a level of abstraction above cherry-picking data from within one field of science.

Think about it. How many scientific fields have humans developed? Hundreds? Thousands? I honestly don't know the true number, but I know it's too many to become fixated on one. If you've become incurably entranced by and critical of one area of research, the problem most likely lies with you and your own childish preconceptions/misconceptions/biases/etc., not the science.

That brings us to modeling the climate using computers. If you pay attention to the idiots, which you shouldn't other than maybe for laughs, you'd think climate science was the only branch of study which uses computer models. Look at all the articles in that keyword/tag search I just linked for you. And that's only one screwball misinformation site out of many. Climate deniers' sheer fascination with climate modeling is matched only by their level of misunderstanding about how the process works. Oh, and maybe their undying love for Grandpa Al, but we've covered that already, haven't we?

How many other scientific fields use computer modeling? Again, I don't know the number, but by now it's probably the majority. Do you ever see these harebrained deniers going ballistic over computer models used to simulate and predict how galactic collisions work? Or screaming and bellyaching that biologists use them? Where are the cries of denier anguish that computer models used to simulate the brain ARE NOT COMPLETELY INERRANT AND EXACT SO THEREFORE THEY ARE USELESS?

Do you ever see climate deniers commenting about models at such a frenzied pace in online articles for astronomy, biology, medical research, etc.? Why is that, hmmmm? Why do they ignore these other fields? Does anyone have a quote for me from one of the idiotic denier Boss Trolls like Anthony Watts which assaults the use of computer models elsewhere in science?

...cricket...cricket...cricket...

Gosh, shucks, and gee willikers, I just can't figure out why dipshit deniers only despair senselessly over computer models used to predict the climate, while completely ignoring their usage in other fields. Oh so stumped here. How about you?