I'm sure many readers are as skeptical about the whole global warming brouhaha as I am. I find the evidence unconvincing, and scientists who rely on models (that can't reproduce actual conditions when fed accurate data) rather than investigation, experimentation and observation, aren't scientists at all.
Jerry Pournelle posted an excellent 'Climate Prediction Summary' on his blog (the original and first-ever blog) early in April. Click on the first link to read it - it's very worthwhile.
His conclusion:
Modeling the weather is difficult. Modeling climate is more difficult. Most of the equations cannot be solved and must be evaluated by brute force numerical analysis. This is difficult math and requires very expensive computers. Getting those computers requires grants. Getting those grants requires peer reviewed publications. Getting a positive peer review requires, usually, that you adhere to limits set by the "consensus" position. The consensus today is Global Warming despite the evidence that there is something wrong with the model. The consensus is intolerant of dissent from one side, but tolerated the "hockey stick" with unpublished secret algorithms for years.
And that is our present state, except that the weather observers -- those who deal with data -- tend to dissent from the Global Warming Consensus. They see trends but not the trends that the modelers see. Moreover, no model -- none -- can take the initial conditions of ten years ago and arrive at the present, much less track reality over the last hundred years.
Simple Bayesian Analysis says that if you have two mutually exclusive and expensive alternatives, then it is better to spend money reducing uncertainty than in preparing for either of the expensive alternatives. If the Earth is warming we have one course of action; if it be cooling we require another (and of course ice is a far greater danger if it comes). What we ought to be doing is better observations to see what is happening. When we do gather more data we find that the case for man-made Global Warming is not in general supported by the data. Solar output and volcanism are the major drivers of world temperature, and neither is entirely predictable.
Well said, Sir!
Oh - and on the subject of global warming and climate catastrophe, I understand that the Chief Prophet of Doom, Al Gore, is getting into mathematics. He's claiming credit for inventing Al-Gore-ithms.
Peter
I'll believe in Global Warmin' when they explain how they fixed Global Coolin' back in '78.
ReplyDeleteI study paleoclimates, and guess what, the planet warmed and cooled a number of times before humans developed the internal combustion engine and spray cans.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, another ice age would be a lot worse on people than would a warmer planet. Skim through Fagan's or LeRoi Ladourie's books about the Little Ice Age for more on that topic.
"Al-Gore-ithms"
ReplyDeleteOw! Ow! OwOwOw!
{grin}