The Profound Junk Science of Climate
American Thinker,
by
Norman Rogers
Original Article
Posted By: Hazymac,
11/27/2021 11:42:18 AM
Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.
The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias,
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 11/27/2021 11:48:28 AM (No. 990404)
How can anyone with more than a teaspoon of brains - - believe that absolute B.S.?
Maybe the teaspoons got smaller?
11 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Roscoelewis 11/27/2021 11:53:22 AM (No. 990410)
Typical engineers and physicists all know this is junk science. They all know that the physics and cost/benefit analysis of electric cars, wind mills, and solar panels makes no economic sense.
21 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 11/27/2021 12:12:53 PM (No. 990426)
Scammers go where the money is.
12 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Avanti1 11/27/2021 12:19:40 PM (No. 990429)
The scientific method involves stating a hypothesis and testing its validity with empirical data. Only when the data fits the hypothesis is the hypothesis accepted; consensus of scientists is not a basis of validation.
The consensus at one time was that the earth was the center of the solar system. Empirical data proved this to be false.
The consensus at one time was that the earth was flat. Empirical data proved this to be false.
Only when empirical data validates a computer model should that model be accepted. Why do climate modelers not follow the scientific method?
8 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 11/27/2021 12:22:34 PM (No. 990433)
It kind of reminds one of Hunter's art gallery 'business".
9 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Strike3 11/27/2021 12:28:47 PM (No. 990441)
I have done hundreds of hours of computer programming to predict the manufacturing needs of companies that wish to project future sales and inventory demands. No matter how accurate the programs are, one can never account for all the variables in the data and changing conditions in the marketplace.
Add optimistic lies to the predictions of incomplete computer projections and you have exactly what the climate freaks want you to have, terrifying bad news. Better buy that Tesla now and learn to like chicken and seaweed, or not.
6 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Nimby 11/27/2021 12:34:04 PM (No. 990446)
Next- The Profound Junk Science of COVID Vaccine
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 11/27/2021 1:05:02 PM (No. 990470)
I did computer modeling of various physical systems starting in my grad school project for my master's degree in mechanical engineering modeling hybrid electric vehicles. We then built a hybrid diesel electric transit bus and tested my computer model.
I went on to a career modeling other systems from electric fields, to thermal systems and mostly structural systems, including shock and vibration. When I retired we had four supercomputers at my company, one of the largest computational centers in the world. I've done lots of modeling....but not the climate.
In any case, I know a good deal about computer modeling, and all that this author says is correct. Curve fitting is the "brain dead" version of prediction. If you have literally no idea what the science is behind something....you can fit a curve to past data and make predictions of the future. The problem is that these sort of 'no science behind it' "models" tend to go RADICALLY awry in a relatively short time after the end of the real data (present time). This means that they may have good prediction for very short time periods in the future, but will go radically wrong with predictions at any substantial time periods in the future. Their "next 100 years" is pure fantasy. Meaningless drivel meant to get them funded and keep you scared.
Climate models are absolute junk. The root cause is that we do not understand the incredibly complex underlying phenomena at all well. One of the most dominant factors is solar output....and we have not the slightest clue what the sun is going to do in the long run. What little past data we have from sun spots points to a decrease in temperature, a cooling climate based on decreasing sun spots in the last half century. But we have no idea WHY sun spots seem to be linked to solar output. During the Maunder Minimum of no sunspots for an extended time a couple of centuries back, we went into the Little Ice Age, a substantially colder period for about a century or two, which we are only recovering from in this last century.
Climate "science" is mostly the same sort of science as propelled the various patent medicine "snake oil" salesmen of the 1800s.
Get your Dr. Michael's Serum, it is guaranteed to cure rheumatism, ague, lumbago, rickets, headaches, female problems, gout, falling hair, back trouble, weak stomach and many other common ailments. Just $1 a bottle!
And the huckster will be out of town in a couple of days, on to a new crop of suckers.
Does Dr. Fraud sound about like this, too?
14 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
JHHolliday 11/27/2021 1:40:16 PM (No. 990510)
I was watching the local Chattanooga news station and their weatherman always shows the record highs and lows for the current date. The record high was something like 75 f and that was in 1887 in case anyone thinks it was colder back then. The record low was 26 in 1927 (I think). Climate change is just a way for "scientists" to suck up grant money and the globalists to steal from the wealthier countries.
8 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
walcb 11/27/2021 2:14:21 PM (No. 990520)
Nuclear is reliable and does not produce CO2.
7 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
MickTurn 11/27/2021 3:56:10 PM (No. 990574)
But But...Al Bore's climate models (full of crap science) tell us we are all dead already, we just don't know it!
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Heil Liberals 11/27/2021 11:04:42 PM (No. 990730)
I have more confidence in the reality of any quality video game than in the crapolla that passes for climate modeling. Ask those Russians on the ships stuck in the Arctic sea ice how that global warming thing is working.
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Trigger2 11/28/2021 2:57:08 AM (No. 990773)
Corrupt junk science is a better descriptor. Climate change is nothing more than to gull the public into forking over more money to lessen the fears that junk science foisted on them.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Hazymac"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)