On Fox’s Special Report Monday evening, Brit Hume made the central argument against the politics and science of global warming: its proponents have not yet made accurate predictions. Nor have they gotten the concept straight. Is “global warming” or “climate change” the problem?
I began writing about this issue years ago and always have been an extreme skeptic (Climate Change Fraud – Hollywood’s Silent Spring.) The data appeared doctored and the conclusions seemed preposterous. But my assumption had been it was due to extreme researcher bias, not explicit fraud, as we now know is also true. Modern climate science has become a political game of wealth transference. Future generations will view AGW as we now view alchemy, a “science” which Isaac Newton believed during his lifetime. I cannot transfer my certainty to you, but I can explain why I think this way. In part 1, I will discuss scientific reasons; and, in part 2, my heuristic reasons for this skepticism.
Most science is applied science. This activity uses known theories to create things (for example, computer chip manufacturers use quantum mechanics.) While difficult, the most difficult type of science is new or “theoretical science.” Theoretical scientists create theories that try to make successful predictions which have never been made before. This is extremely difficult. The science of global warming is a theoretical science.
Simply stated, climate scientists have been trying to answer the question: “what causes the earth to warm or cool?” The ultimate thing they seek to measure — then predict — is temperature. Many things need to be measured to determine that. Some of these other “things” include greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists want to measure the amount of them, and how they dynamically interact with each other, the suns heat, and the planet. Since AGW scientists have hypothesized that man’s actions have disturbed a delicate natural balance, they also must measure the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by nature versus man’s activities (including animal husbandry, farming, heating and cooling of buildings, emissions from cars and machinery, etc.) A theory must describe why this delicate balance is so sensitive to man made emissions versus other types of naturally occurring random emissions. This data must be put together with a theory that requires many feedback loops in order to make predictions.
Given the complexity of the task, we should be more surprised if the science made accurate predictions than not. The late physicist Carl Sagan wrote, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Being able to predict the next 3 or 30 years’ temperature is certainly an extraordinary claim; and almost absurd sounding on its face. Little wonder this has not been successful. Instead, climate scientists have relied on computer models to promote their cause. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, per se. But computer models are themselves only theories. One cannot use a theory to prove itself! One needs empirical evidence to make a theory or computer model viable.
The reason computer models have been unsuccessful making predictions, for me at least, is obvious. The sheer number of variables, their complex interactions, and the amount of accurate data required is enormous. The more variables and the less certain the data, the easier it is to “fit the data” to the desired conclusion. One need not do this purposely, although scientists at East Anglia were fraudulent. Science requires predictions, not simply consensus (which this paper shows does not exist, in any event), to be viable.
On one level, this is not complex at all. Alarmists have a theory. It has not yet made accurate predictions. Why are we even discussing “consensus”?