Yes, the science is settled.
The acceleration due to gravity at the earth’s surface is 9.8m/s2. That is settled science. It is what the data says, and it’s the figure on which scientists, engineers and Newton’s falling apple agree on.
If someone were to say that their model showed a figure for gravitational acceleration of, say, 32.1 m/s2, then we’d be entitled to call their model bunk. And we wouldn’t rely on it to build bridges, say, or to calculate space flight or the launch of a satellite.
Yet this amount of error is precisely the case with every one of the 44 mainstream climate models, which en masse overstate the actual temperature trend by the same amount as our hypothetical gravitational model.
Dr Roy Spencer at the University of Huntsville, Alabama, has put together a handy chart showing the difference between reality and the models, for the period 1979-2012 from the satellite-based temperature measurements for the globe’s lower troposphere (red and blue lines), and for 1975 – 2025 for the models (all the other lines, with the black line showing the models’ average).
Spencer’s understated conclusion:
Clearly, there is increasing divergence over the years between the satellite observations (UAH, RSS) and the models.
And not just a random divergence, but a consistent overstatement of predicted temperatures—you could almost say a bias towards catastrophism. Perhaps because “that belief is pretty much a requirement to get funding from governments around the world to develop these models. This must certainly result in a significant bias of the average result of these models.”
Even a non-scientist should be able to easily see that this implies a great disagreement in the science between these model-builders. It implies a large uncertainty about the science the respective models believe they know well enough to try to incorporate into their models.
In fact, there are many uncertainties that are actually known and many others that may well be unknown…
So how do these government-funded and coddled global warming alarmist scientists, most of the print media, and the Obama [and Key] administration get away with claiming that the science of catastrophic man-made global warming is settled? How can they believe and expect anyone else to believe that 97% of scientists are on-board with this hogwash?
They ought to be laughed at were the consequences not so dire. But, they advocate so many limits on our freedoms and so much economic damage in the name of this scientifically bogus theory that it is hardly a laughing matter. What is more, it is very harmful to the respect that real science should be given.
Even if there is a widespread “consensus” among climate scientists on the science of global warming, it is clear the science itself is very far from settled—and very far from being able to say anything worthwhile about reality.
You wouldn’t want to build bridges to the next century relying on figures as far off as these.
STUDY: Climate change causing climate models to become less reliable
A groundbreaking new study has shown that climate change is the underlying cause of increasingly frequent and severe climate model failures. Researchers at Pennsylvania State Community College have discovered a critical link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration and general circulation model errors.
“Climate change has made it increasingly difficult to predict climate change,” says Dr. Manyard Michael, the lead scientist behind the study. “The current 16 year pause in global warming illustrates just how serious this situation has been; if not for climate change, we now know that we would have been able to accurately predict the current break in warming and clearly show that climate change is actually accelerating faster than forecast – not stopping as climate change is making it appear to those outside of the climate science community.” Dr. Michael also noted that they stumbled on this important finding almost by accident. “We just happened to notice that the higher carbon dioxide concentrations climbed, the more we had to adjust the data to get the results we knew to be right, and the more we adjusted the data, the bigger the error in the models. It’s a very strong positive feedback.”
This research has been quietly in the works for several years, and was almost compromised by the 2009 research theft known as “climategate.” For example, one particular email that has been cited repeatedly said in part, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Skeptics have misrepresented this quote to suggest that climate scientists can’t explain why the climate is not behaving as forecast and thus there is no climate change happening when in actuality, the researcher was lamenting exactly the opposite. He knew the fact that climate models did not predict a lack of warming meant climate change had progressed much faster than previously thought, and he was expressing sadness that man has brought the climate to this point.
Climate change deniers and anti-science websites have long grasped at the seemingly endless string of model failures and ever increasing forecast error as a way to argue the theory that humans are causing global warming is somehow falsified. Noted climate modeler Dr. Hans Jameson of the National Model Rocket Association commented, “thanks to this research, we can say with certainty what we in the climate research community known all along, that the bigger the climate model errors, the more confident we can be that manmade climate change is happening.” Because climate change continues to accelerate faster than at any time since before the dinosaurs, the scientific consensus is that that there will be some truly stunning model failures on the horizon.
The researchers also stressed that mainstream climate science has demonstrated a remarkable ability to hindcast. As Dr. Michael points out “we can now predict the lull in warming of the past 16 years with surprising accuracy.” He further remarked that “given how well we can predict the past, the only thing that explains the difficulty of forecasting the future with equal success is the increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses. This research changes everything.” And while they are yet unable to fully explain the exact mechanics behind the correlation, the researchers expressed 99% confidence in their conclusion.
The study which is set to be published in every scientific journal is expected to open up new areas of unprecedented spending in the emerging field of climate research.
The hat tip for the spoof is Pete Boettke at Cafe Hayek, who says,
I have no strong feelings about the reality, the magnitude, or the cause(s) of climate change. I'm not a climate scientist. From what I read, I suspect that the earth's temperature - however appropriately measured - has indeed risen somewhat over the course of the 20th century or so, although this temperature rise also seems to have stopped so far during the 21st century. But whether or not this account is accurate, and regardless of cause(s), I have little doubt that bourgeois people operating in free, competitive, private-property-based markets will more than adequately deal with any problems - and take great advantage of any blessings - caused by climate change. No plausible change in the earth's temperature can possibly pose as great a hazard to humanity's well-being as that posed by governments given great rein to 'solve' problems posed by changes in the earth's temperature. [Emphasis in the original.]