Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Do your homework, kids

One of the big problems with the so-called debate over global warming is a disturbing lack of understanding on the part of the public regarding the basis of the positions of the two sides. The alarmists, the ones who say we're all going to die if we don't stop using fossil fuels yesterday, base their positions on computer models. The so-called skeptics -- or worse, "deniers," invoking that whole Holocaust denier  imagery -- base their skepticism on observed data, among other things. The whole point of the scientific method is to come up with a hypothesis and then try like hell to prove it wrong. The global warming folks -- and by that, I mean the anthropogenic global warming folks, who claim  mankind is causing a warming of the planet byt its production of carbon dioxide that is going to be disastrous -- have never tried to follow this method. Instead, they ignore data they don't like and base their entire theory upon the results of global climate models. In other words, computer simulations, not the real world.

Alas, their models suck. There is so much that still is not understood about what factors affect climate that the warming alarmists don't even know what they're leaving out of their models, or whether the factors they are including work the way they think they do. The models, frankly, stink.

How do we know this? Because we have data, and the models are contradicted by actual data. Reality bites, right? Not a single fucking one of the major climate models out there accurately predicts what has happened in recent years and is happening now. Read that much? Try this:

Seventy-three climate models worldwide, not a single fucking one matches the actual data. Hey! Maybe Americans are better, right? Nah, not so much. Nineteen US-based models also go 0-fer:

Please note that they are not even close to reality.

So what does this mean? It doesn't mean man isn't contributing to any atmospheric warming. It doesn't mean we are. It means we don't fucking know, but we do know that the models that assume mankind is causing, not contributing to, any warming are for shit. For anyone who disagrees, please explain the anthropogenic warming theory in the comments. I'm betting none of you even understand the basics of the theory in which you so fervently believe. (At least the liberals in the audience.) And if you don't understand the theory at its most basic level, I'm a little confused as to why you might defend it while simultaneously calling me "anti-science."

No comments: