Those of us who do not believe in catastrophic global warming are often smeared as “skeptics” or “deniers” of the findings of modern climate science–findings that are treated as on par with, say, the theory of evolution by natural selection.
In his latest article at MasterResource, CIP’s Eric Dennis, who has an extensive background in both physics and mathematical modeling, explains why the “findings” of modern climate science are in fact arbitrary predictions based on bogus models that childishly oversimplify the monumental task of understanding long-term climate dynamics.
One of my favorite passages from the article is Eric’s explanation of what would constitute evidence that a climate model is promising:
The catastrophists need to demonstrate their methodology by applying it to smaller problems whose outcomes we don’t have to wait a century for. They need to derive unambiguous, detailed predictions for these outcomes and see them borne out. By “detailed” I mean predictions of not just a single number, like a cumulative warming trend, that could just be accidentally correct—and they’re not even getting predictions on these simpler metrics right. I mean predictions of a more intricate, unaccidental nature.
For instance, climate models predict a detailed pattern of warming that occurs at different rates in different parts of the globe and, importantly, at different altitudes in the atmosphere. But when we look in actual climate data for the specific, altitude-dependent warming signature produced by these models, we find something entirely different.