Warmists Really Need To Stop Calling It “Climate Science”
May 26, 2016 – 10:30 am
Why? Good question
The Truth Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know About The Climate Models
The global warming alarmists tell us to trust the science. But when it comes to climate studies, there’s less science and more accounting going on there.
Computer models have an important place in science. They are useful in helping us understand our world, but models themselves aren’t science. Encyclopaedia Britannica says “scientific models at best are approximations of the objects and systems that they represent,” but “they are not exact replicas.” In the case of climate models, they are not even close to being approximate replicas.
“There can be too much of a good thing,” scholars Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Wojick wrote last week in a Cato At Liberty blog post about climate models. And in climate science, the “good thing” has become the dominant thing.
Michaels and Wojick did a little digging and what they learned was “that modeling completely dominates climate change research.” In other words, climate scientists put greater faith in results produced more by math calculations than solid science.
Of course, Warmists will complain about the messenger, rather than the notion that what they call climate science is really climate modeling. 55% of all modeling in scientific research is done by Warmists, while climate science accounts for just 4% of all science. Think about this in reverse: 96% of other scientific endeavors accounts for just 45% of the modeling. And the models from Warmists are consistently wrong. 95% failed to predict the Pause. They failed to predict the greening of the earth. They even fail in reverse, being unable to replicate the actual climate, both at the local level and world level.
Yet the modeling template marches on, even as, Michaels and Wojick note, “the climate science research that is done appears to be largely focused on improving the models.”
Get that? Climate scientists are spending more energy and resources trying to upgrade their flawed models than they are trying to understand the climate itself. And it’s a good bet that what most climate scientists will consider improved modeling will be programs that predict even greater warmth.
The models will give out exactly what the Warmist “scientists” want them to give out. When in doubt, change the data and the model to conform to the preconceived notions. This is what modeling does: allows wild, incoherent prognostications of doom, while also creating “data” out of nothing.
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2016/05/26/warmists-really-need-to-stop-calling-it-climate-science/
 Comment by Hank_M
2016-05-26 10:58:25
Global warming ceased being science years ago when people like Hansen and Gore found out they could get rich on it. Leftist Politicians embraced it since it nicely detracts from the abysmal job they do when elected and diverts attention from their inherent corruption. And of course academia embraced it since there’s money to be made.
As for science, they all try to silence the opposition. If there were real science involved, debate would be encouraged and if the global warming cultists arguments had merit, they’d be winning the argument with ease.
Comment by JGlanton
2016-05-26 14:01:15
They failed when their models predicted more hurricanes, bigger hurricanes, more tornadoes, worse droughts, worse floods, less snow, coastal destruction, accelerated sea level rise, accelerated glacial melting, loss of ice caps, and a thousand myriad side-effect models predicting bad things happening to flora and fauna and housecats.
They failed in almost every way. Pull their budgets and send them home. |
