Durk Pearson & Sandy Shaw’s®
Life Extension NewsTM
Volume 15 No. 6 • October 2012


Climategate 3 —How to Fool the Public Now Explained Openly in a Scientific Journal Rather Than Covertly in E-Mails

As if using emails to communicate ideas on how to manipulate public opinion on global warming were not enough, now we see scientists actually suggesting in a major scientific journal how to make their models look more convincing to the public by carefully and deliberately dodging the problem of uncertainties. See the article in the 14 June 2012 Nature.1

The “problem,” as explained in the article is that “[t]he climate models they [the IPCC] are now working with, which make use of significant improvements in our understanding of complex climate processes, are likely to produce wider rather than smaller ranges of uncertainty in their predictions. To the public and to policymakers, this will look as though the scientific understanding of climate change is becoming less, rather than more, clear.” The authors go on to explain that models have a limited capability to predict the future because, first of all, “they [the models] are not reality.” (Wow! Who would have thought.) “By their very nature, models cannot capture all the factors involved in a natural system, and those that they do capture are often incompletely understood.” Indeed, the authors mention that “science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California at San Diego and her colleagues have argued convincingly that that makes climate models impossible to truly verify or validate.” If that is so, then the models cannot be truly falsified either, which takes them out of the realm of science altogether. Remarkable that the article’s authors didn’t see that.

There follows a list of difficulties in making predictions using climate models that includes picturing economic conditions in 100 years. “The economic collapse of 2008 showed dramatically, and to our cost, how difficult it is to predict changes in the economy.” This means that to make projections of how economic conditions in 100 years will affect how fossil fuels are being used is much more difficult than these scientists believed. (Indeed—and they do not mention this—the innovations in energy use that will have developed by 100 years from now is inherently unpredictable and of considerable importance if one is to somehow plan now for how humans should be using energy in 100 years.)

We will not list all of the “problems” the modelers complain of having with their models that are full of uncertainties. However, the article does include this little gem: “… Paul Valdes of Bristol University, UK, argues that climate models are too stable, built to ‘not fail’ rather than to simulate abrupt climate change. When the current IPCC models were tested against four major past climate changes, he notes, two were unable to even get the basic climate before the shift correct and the other two had to be fed parameters up to ten times greater than would be realistic to produce the abrupt shift.” Later in the article, the authors note that “[a]lthough their [one new model used by Dan Rowlands and his colleagues at Oxford, UK] average results matched well with IPCC projections, more extreme results, including warming of up to 4 degrees C by 2050, seemed just as likely. As computing power becomes more accessible, that ‘hidden’ uncertainty will become even more obvious.”

The authors hasten to add that “[n]one of this means that climate models are useless.” They claim that present models are “clearly able to reproduce natural climate variability over the past 150 years, and have provided an essential test of the theoretical link between CO2 and global temperatures.” (This supposes, for example, the very unlikely proposition that all of what causes natural climate variability is currently known and integrated into climate models.) On the basis of these models, then, these authors seriously propose to coercively regulate billions of human lives by, for example, investing a “huge” increase in spending (of other people’s money) on renewable energy sources to reduce reliance on oil, coal, and gas and instituting measures to lessen car use so as to increase walking and cycling (which would, they add, reduce the risk of obesity and heart attacks so all this coercion must be OK. Hey, what about requiring that people eat broccoli? A large body of data indicates that that would reduce the incidence of a number of types of cancer.).

But now look at the article’s suggestion of how to make these climate models look a whole lot more credible to the public: “One approach to tackling the public-perception problem is to subtly rephrase the conclusions, placing the uncertainty on the date by which things will happen, rather than onto whether they will happen at all.” That sounds good; just avoid the entire matter of uncertainties by simply asserting that the outcome itself is a certainty but the models just cannot tell you with any precision when they will take place. “A recent study, for example, showed that the politically expedient 2 degrees C limit will be reached between 2040 and 2100, depending on our emission pathway and the model used. This ‘when’ not ‘if’ approach is powerful.”

But the issue of WHEN things will take place, even if one assumes that sometime in the future a certain event will occur (such as an increase in average Earth temperature by 2 degrees C) is of critical importance when you are making an investment. How can you determine how much you should spend NOW to affect a certain future occurrence if you cannot know when that future occurrence will happen? It would be like investing a “huge” amount of money in a future delivery of Coca-Cola® without knowing when the Coca-Cola will be delivered.

The Global Warming Bubble

The global warming phenomenon is a classic example of an economic bubble; it has only been able to take place because of huge amounts of public money used to pump up the supplies of global warming scientists, “renewable” energy (unable to survive in a market where people pay only for what they want at prices they are willing to pay), and myriad very costly rules and regulations that have been passed in pursuit of the impossible goal of keeping climate from changing. To add to the unreality, interest rates on borrowing money are now being set artificially low in the U.S. by the Federal Reserve, thereby destroying the signal interest rates determined by markets are supposed to provide on the preference people have for using money now as compared to saving it (or investing it) for the future, a reflection of the perception of future risk in recovering the value of money. Thus, higher interest rates come from a perception of increased risk of future losses. The Fed’s low interest rate is a fraud on the public that makes it appear that there is little economic risk in the future, thus creating another bubble, causing people who invest to underestimate the cost of recovering the value of their money in the future.

We may have (luckily) gotten past the time when public confusion about global warming might allow for global political bodies to institute the totalitarian world of Centrally Planned Climate. The current “consensus” on climate is that it will change, but there is little agreement on much else. It is even possible for there to be considerable periods of climate cooling during a period of supposed general climate warming if you hypothesize various types of climate feedback, as has been discussed in some scientific journal articles.

The authors conclude with a plea to forget about uncertainties in the models, that “we” know enough already to take immediate action by spending hundreds of billions or even trillions to reduce carbon emissions so that in 100 years … we will have different disasters to deal with but won’t have the hundreds of billions we need to fix ’em.

What a pile of BS!! This brave new world would only be better for those making the rules and regulations and controlling the huge amounts of other people’s money that would become available for those in power to distribute to themselves and the people they favor.

Reference

  1. Maslin and Austin. Climate models at their limit? Nature 486:183-4 (2012).

FREE Subscription

  • You're just getting started! We have published thousands of scientific health articles. Stay updated and maintain your health.

    It's free to your e-mail inbox and you can unsubscribe at any time.
    Loading Indicator