I suspect that imposing the rigor of the Sarbanes Oxley Act to the computer models that climatologists used to generate their scary scenarios would eliminate their scary scenarios. Why? Well, their world would learn about the differences between developers, testers, test plans, test scenarios, change management controls, source code control, test environments, QA environments, UAT environments, production environments, separation of duties, etc. etc.

If they put Word Climate Change Model version 1.1 into production, they would have to prove that it didn’t break anything in Word Climate Change Model version 1.0,  and that it accurately predicted any climate change that occurred since the release of the prior version. Those are the standards private entities are held to. Any software professional who has glanced at the text file called HARRY_READ_ME.txt knows that the climate models are unprofessional garbage.

Oh, for a comparison for normal people. How about asking an amateur carpenter, who built your birdhouse, to draw up the plans for the Twin Towers replacement project? True, they could produce sketches, but they could never produce plans adequate to the task. The IPCC computer models are worthless. And that’s just from a software standpoint. I suspect the science is just as bad.

Advertisements