I have finally completed a huge and mathematically difficult design project that has been on my plate for the last couple of months and have a little time for blogging. I’m thoroughly excited about the project and like so many things I do, I dug in hard and worked until I was fully burned out on it. Seems to be my style.
Anyway, the multi-billion dollar international global warming industry is continuing on despite the major shots the science has taken in recent years. The denial of reality by the activist scientists has already reached astounding proportions and seems to be growing with the realization that their predictions of the future are no more valid than Mrs Cleo’s prediction of bankruptcy. Predicting the future seems a rough business.
There have been a few notable posts on the matter, Anthony Watts carried one which featured climate change advocate Richard Betts quoted as writing “Bish, as always I am slightly bemused over why you think GCMs are so central to climate policy.”. I’m literally gobsmacked by the insanity of a claimed scientific position that climate models might not be THE central evidence for a position of climate policy. It leaves one wondering what a lead author of the IPCC might consider in lieu of a model for prediction of future climate.
In short, the industry’s failure is in full view and nobody, scientist, advocate or homeless person can claim that the earth is warming to disaster, because there is now quite literally zero evidence to support the position. There are plenty of scientists holding on for the “big warmup” that will somehow save the models. There are even a couple of “scientific” publications digging very deep into the data mash to tweak parameters in line. I won’t reference them, particularly the one by Gavin Schmidt, because they are trash and tripe and not worth reading. What they do represent though is yet another symptom of government funded research gone awry with advocacy, a sick industry with little hope for salvation from the wrath of the god of physics.
Climate science meets engineering reality, finally.
And it is the climate models that failed. They overpredicted warming by CO2 so dramatically that we were able to statistically detect the failure decades before anyone really expected to. Despite Betts ridiculous and untenable position on climate models, there is no other mechanism by which we can predict climate than models. Now before people jump on the concept that climate models can’t work, that is a flatly false position to hold. They absolutely can work. They can even work reasonably well for predicting global temperature trends at their current sophistication level. Unfortunately, the sensitivity to CO2 warming is incorrect and even when it is corrected we won’t know how far current models will accurately predict into the future. Like local weather models which predict rain reasonably well two days out, observation and comparison is the only way to know if it worked.
And that comparison of observed temperature to today’s models — failed. All dead.
I’ve got bad news for you though folks. You cannot kill an industry that easily. There is simply too much money at stake for these people to lose their jobs – as they well should. There is a politically ironic comparison which seems to me fits the context. The tobacco industry, in its heyday, tried to publish “science” showing that tobacco didn’t cause cancer. It took years to beat the truth out of that little issue, and in the end the truth did come out. Yet the industry still lives on. There is simply too much money and too many people relying on that money to shut down an industry like that overnight.
It will be interesting to see how far it goes, but the quotes rolling out of climate science are consistent with a socialist left wing political agenda based on top-down control and completely inconsistent with the science. A duck is a duck in my world.
One wonders just how far they can go with this broken message before the unthinking public recognizes that there aren’t any climate disasters to talk about. The feedback between government funded fake science, and reality is tremendously slow. We may actually achieve all of the expense and government regulatory control with literally zero societal benefit. In fact, a new book has been released which highlights the clear fact that CO2 is a highly beneficial gas and its warming effects do nothing but good for life on Earth. A position I have grown to hold over the years. If my reasonable and previously mainstream scientific view is correct, these energy regulations and costs will create negative impacts both on the economy and the biosphere when compared to a world without them.
There is nothing inherently wrong with wind, solar and biofuel energy, when unsubsidized by government, the subsidized form is a story for another day. However it seems clear that the highly scrubbed CO2 and water emissions from an old fashion coal plant are quite likely a net positive for life on this planet. The mild warming and additional building blocks CO2 provides for plant life both appear to be very positive developments from everything I have studied. The extremist left-wing political resistance to healthy economic growth and individual wealth and power stand starkly unsupported at this time.
Of course I could be wrong and climate models are actually not needed to see the climate future, and tobacco doesn’t cause cancer.
Cathartic as always!