Bazinga.

(I stopped watching "The Big Bang Theory" right around the time that Keoni Galt published a screed against it a while back, but I do tend to agree with Sheldon on quite a few things. Not least of which is his theory that women are "bat-crap crazy".)

While I disagree with the specific idea that F = ma doesn't accurately represent reality- I would say that it is more precise to state that this equation works as a special case of a completely sound general theory- I do agree that models that try to predict the future without accurately backtesting against the past are simply not worthwhile.

Climate data sets go back thousands of years, but very few, if any, models that I've heard of have successfully backtested against those data sets properly. Let me put it this way- as much as people hate bankers and traders, if our risk managers tried to deploy a model that did not successfully backtest within acceptable parameters against at least 3 years' worth of data, they would be promptly fired. Yet in climate science, politicians and "scientists" use shoddy models and shaky conclusions derived from them to justify trillion-dollar boondoggles, because science, and they all still have jobs- including Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann. That is flatly unacceptable.

One of the first things you learn in physics 101 is that fundamental equations like F=ma are models and don't accurately represent reality. There is no reason to trust models with multiple variables based on insufficient data; because logically, mapping long term climate change based off about 50 years of data is rather ambitious at best and a total failure at worst.

I think Sheldon would agree that climate science – like geology – isn't even a real science.