Warmists Really Need To Stop Calling It “Climate Science”

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.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

62 Responses to “Warmists Really Need To Stop Calling It “Climate Science””

  1. Jeffery says:

    You don’t seem to have any idea what the scientific method is, do you?

    The point of the essay is that there is no one thing called the “scientific method”. But we wouldn’t expect you to understand.

    Our other point was that you’re a tedious hypocrite – being educated by taxpayers, making millions off Medicare and Medicaid ptx and then complaining about other gov’t expenditures.

    If not CO2 what do you believe is causing the Earth to warm? You fancy yourself a scientist, so you probably appreciate there isn’t any magic. By what mechanism is the Earth warming rapidly and significantly?

  2. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Guess I missed the part where the ‘data’ in those two pretty little graphs ‘proved’ CO2 added mankind causes global warming.

    It is evidence that the greenhouse effect is increasing. Now, we just have to examine the atmosphere to determine what has changed over the last half century.

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    It is evidence that the greenhouse effect is increasing.

    No, those two pretty little graphs ‘show’ a slight increase in temperature anomalies.

    Where is the evidence ‘proving’ CO2 added by mankind is ‘causing’ global warming?

  4. Jeffery says:

    Those graphs show the mean global surface temperature increasing rapidly.

    Where denialists are in error is in thinking the mean global surface temperature is the same as the high for the day in Birmingham AL. The difference between 91F and 92.4F some afternoon seems insignificant but means quite a lot to the mean global surface temperature. The entire temperature range of the Holocene from high during the “optimum” to low in the little ice age has been eclipsed by the 1.4F increase in the past century or so. Wide and rapid swings such as this are unusual, not common.

    Why do you think the Earth is warming rapidly? Scientists are pretty certain it’s because of CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. Do you have a more compelling explanation?

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    The entire temperature range of the Holocene from high during the “optimum” to low in the little ice age has been eclipsed by the 1.4F increase in the past century or so. Wide and rapid swings such as this are unusual, not common.

    – that little guy again who exaggerates often

    Even if those statements were proven to be true, which they have not, there is still no proof that CO2 added by mankind is ‘causing’ ‘rapid’ global warming.

  6. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: No, those two pretty little graphs ‘show’ a slight increase in temperature anomalies.

    No. The graphs show an *increase* in surface and tropospheric temperatures, but a *decrease* in stratospheric temperatures, consistent with an increase in the greenhouse effect.

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    Sorry, my mistake.

    A slight decrease in stratospheric temp anomalies.

    Still looking for that proof in those pretty little graphs that CO2 added by mankind causes rapid global warming.

  8. Jeffery says:

    No denialist ever answers this simple question:

    What evidence would you consider proof?

  9. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Still looking for that proof in those pretty little graphs that CO2 added by mankind causes rapid global warming.

    Let’s start with the basics. Do you understand why a warming surface and troposphere, while the stratosphere cools, is considered a signature of an increasing greenhouse effect? Even more basically, do you understand that there is a greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warmer than would be the case if it were a theoretical graybody?

  10. Jeffery says:

    Has the theory of gravity been “proven”?

    Has the link between tobacco and long cancer been “proven”?

    Has the theory of evolution been “proven”?

    Cell theory? Big bang theory? Plate tectonics? General relativity? Quantum theory?

    What is the evidence that convinces you that the continents move around?

    Here’s the problem with global warming denialism: It’s a theory where denialism pays off – that’s why fossil fuel corporations and their lackeys deny the obvious, that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

    What evidence would you consider proof of CO2-caused warming?

  11. drowningpuppies says:

    Has the theory of intelligent design been proven?

    Love it when warmists put forth so-called proof of man-made global warming by posting pretty little graphs, get called on it, then keep moving those goal posts.

    If you had scientific proof that CO2 produced by mankind causes global warming you should be able to produce it.

    So far all you do is ask more questions.

  12. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: So far all you do is ask more questions.

    Yes, that’s right. We want to know your level of ignorance or denial, so as to better answer your question about evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

    Let’s start with the basics. Do you understand why a warming surface and troposphere, while the stratosphere cools, is considered a signature of an increasing greenhouse effect? Even more basically, do you understand that there is a greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth warmer than would be the case if it were a theoretical graybody?