The Profound Junk Science of Climate

Skip to first unread message


Nov 30, 2021, 4:14:12 AM11/30/21
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, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities
in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists
can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be
changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good
result would be that the climate model output can match past climate
history. But that good result competes with another kind of good
result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate
catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and
financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.

Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of
the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back.
Imagine that a climate scientist discovers gigantic flaws in the models
and the associated science. Do not imagine that his discovery would be
treated respectfully and evaluated on its merits. That would open the
door to reversing everything that has been so wonderful for climate
scientists. Who would continue to throw billions of dollars a year at
climate scientists if there were no disasters to be prevented? No, the
discoverer of any flaw would be demonized and attacked as a pawn of
evil interests. Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer come to mind. There are
many more skeptical scientists keeping quiet in varying degrees.

Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then
predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure
starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the
model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing
simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting,
it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.

A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting
regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble),
in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this
rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble
method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best
model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common
sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different
methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each
method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will
indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a
mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters
that allow the model to fit nearly anything.

One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically,
one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the
supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except
perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.

There is a political reason for using ensembles. In order to receive
the benefits flowing from predicting a climate catastrophe, climate
science must present a unified front. Dissenters have to be canceled
and suppressed. If the IPCC were to select the best model, dozens of
other modeling groups would be left out. They would, no doubt, form a
dissenting group questioning the authority of those that gave the crown
to one particular model. With ensembles, every group gets to
participate in a rewarding conspiracy against humanity.

Fitting the model to climate history comes up against the fact that
past climate history is poorly documented or unknown. There are
scientific groups that specialize in examining and summarizing the vast
trove of past climate history. Their summaries improve on the original
data in ways that always seem to support global warming catastrophe.
The website specializes in exposing this
tampering with climate history.

Because so much of climate history is unknown, for example, climate
influencing aerosols, the modelers have to make up the missing history.
Each modeler is free to make up his own history, so the various models
fit different assumed past climates. It would be very surprising if
modelers weren’t manipulating their fabricated climates to make their
models behave better.

Scientists are always cautioned not to fall in love with a theory or
method. If they do, they will lose their objectivity. Facts that
support their love will be celebrated, facts that cast doubt on their
love will be ignored or forgotten. But if you spend years, or decades,
married to a modeling methodology, divorce becomes less and less

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization in
Washington, DC that touts itself as the science advisor to the
government. Their advice has some common threads. They never criticize
the scientific establishment and they always promote spending more
money on science. Like the teachers’ unions, they pretend to support
the common good but actually promote their constituency’s special

The Academy sponsored a report on the future of climate modeling. They
apparently saw nothing wrong with staffing the study committee with
professional climate modelers. The report advocated more money for
climate modelers and urged hiring professional public relations people
to present results to the public.

The purported climate catastrophe ahead is 100% junk science. If the
unlikely climate catastrophe actually happens, it will be coincidental
that it was predicted by climate scientists. Most of the supporting
evidence is fabricated. There Is no out-of-the-ordinary climate change
taking place. The constant comparisons of the current climate with
preindustrial climate are nonsense because according to climate theory
and the models, the effect of CO2 was extremely minor before 1975.
Since 1975 nothing points to a climate catastrophe or a new long-term

The fake climate catastrophe has spawned a fake energy paradigm –
replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar electricity. Wind and solar
are claimed to be cheaper than traditional sources of electricity but
non-fake accounting reveals that wind or solar electricity costs five
or even ten times more than traditional electricity, exclusive, of
course, of government subsidies and mandates. The reason it costs so
much is that the erratic nature of wind and solar requires maintaining
the traditional electricity generating system intact and ready to
operate when wind and solar fail. Solar fails every night, every cloudy
day, and more often in winter. Wind fails at random times, or somewhat
predictable times, and often has a seasonal cycle. If the renewable
energy advocates were logical, they would be advocating for nuclear.
Nuclear is reliable and does not produce CO2.

Climate change and wind and solar electricity are a snipe hunts,
diverting the country from serious problems in favor of imaginary
problems with imaginary solutions that enrich the promoters and their
political friends with status and money.

: Norman Rogers spent 10-years studying climate change and climate
: change scientists. He is the author of the book Dumb Energy, about
: wind and solar energy. He is on the board of the CO2 Coalition and
: was formerly on the board of the National Association of Scholars.
: He holds a master’s degree in physics.

Let's go Brandon!

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages