The anti-scientific climate model
To say it’s unpleasantly cold might be dismissed as banal small talk. Of course it’s cold. It’s a Canadian winter. And we all saw it coming. Except we didn’t.
For decades alarmists have said man- made global warming is about to end winter as we know it. They claimed to know all about climatic patterns and be able to predict with mathematical precision what 2050 will be like if we do, or don’t do, certain things. And after anything happened they said their theory had predicted it whether it had or not.
They even s witched, after l ong i nsisting that man- made warming was incontrovertible and only boobs and hacks denied it, to touting nebulous “anthropogenic climate change” that calls all weather proof of a coming apocalypse. But a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing because no outcome can constitute evidence for or against it. Which is not how science works.
In many respects “climate change” was simply a bait, switch and switch, since they continue to hail temperature rises as conclusive proof of their theory while dismissing a lack of temperature rises as irrelevant. “2016 Was Second Hottest Year on Rec- or din U.S .”, NBC proclaimed last week, four days before “A massive ice storm pummelled the Midwest, leaving at least five dead across three states” and the Danube unexpectedly froze. But more fundamentally, science does not work by unconfirmable hypotheses asserted with dogmatic intolerance. It works by controlled experiment.
Chemists add, say, sodium to chlorine in various quantities at various temperatures and pressures, find equations that seem to fit the observed results, then try new combinations to see if the hypothetical relationships hold. If not, the theory is wrong.
The global warming “models” do nothing of the sort. They were not developed by feeding in known past conditions, successfully predicting known past outcomes, then feeding in present conditions and saying judge us by the accuracy of the results. Instead, with spectacular chutzpah, they fed in present conditions, incorporated assumptions that made certain outcomes inevitable, ran the simulation and called the prediction scientific fact. But they never attempted one vital thing without which neither chemistry nor physics would exist. They never tried to explain the past.
We know a lot about what happened in Earth’s history, including frequent bouts of spectacular, worrying climate instability. But we know very little about why, except it cannot have resulted from human action because most “climate change” happened not just before industrialization but before anatomically modern humans. And the scientific as opposed to political method would develop models for predicting the future by “predicting” the past, inputting 8th- century conditions and successfully generating the 11th-, 12th- century conditions to generate the 14th, those of a billion BC to generate the “Snowball Earth” some 850 million years ago and so on.
I am attempting to throw down the gauntlet here. I do not just say no model can explain the Medieval Warm Period, also known revealingly as the “Medieval Climate Optimum” except when man- made global warming is the issue. I say no credible model tries to.
We know the MWP began around 950 AD and ended disastrously with a “Little Ice Age” from around 1300 to 1850, especially intense in the 17th century, not with runaway warming. But no model can say why without so much kluging that it cannot be applied to 2017 or any other period. Like, say, inputting 3 million BC instead of 800 AD and generating the sudden reappearance of vast ice sheets a few hundred thousand years later that surge forth and retreat in bewildering 40- to 100,000- year cycles including today’s still abnormally cool “interglacial” period with significant polar ice.
Am I wrong? Can any of the models that confidently predict f uture warming, floods and hurricanes explain the Younger Dryas, Pliocene- Quaternary glaciation, Cryogenian period or anything else about the Earth’s past history?
It gets worse. It is a fundamental tenet of science that the laws of causation do not change. Otherwise, measurement and experiment would be meaningless. Yet the alarmists violate this precept.
When they repeatedly declare this or that recent year among the warmest in “recorded history” they know full well vaguely systematic temperature measurements only began in the Victorian period. And of course it’s warmer today than in the “Little Ice Age.” But it’s not just a fatally flawed data set.
It’s fundamentally antiscience, because it asserts that a warming cycle that began naturally around 1850 maintained its trend line while abruptly and randomly changing its causation around the time we invented the computer. Why? They never say. Mind you, if the laws of causality are themselves unstable, so are the causes of change in causality. But we are off the deep end here.
If we really value “evidence- based decision- making” we should try to explain the evidence. Including that winter still happens.
I AM ATTEMPTING TO THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET HERE.