Specious argument

I have often, foolishly, commented that the climate modeling of anthropogenic global warming can’t be accurate since weather forecasting is so fallible. It’s a poor argument, as Andrew Dessler at Texas A&M shows:

"Predicting the weather is like predicting what the next roll [of the dice] will be. Predicting the climate is like predicting what the average and standard deviation of 1000 rolls will be. The ability to predict the statistics of the next 1000 rolls does not hinge on the ability to predict the next roll. Thus, one should not dismiss climate forecasts simply because weather forecasts are only good for a few days."

On the other hand, it’s a good argument to say that the climate models are too weak to be trusted, because the physics of the atmosphere isn’t fully understood. In other words: garbage in, garbage out.

0 responses to “Specious argument

  1. Their models don’t take the Sun or cloud cover into account.
    They’re discussing the temperature of the Earth and they’re not considering that huge, glowing orb of nukular fire in the sky or the things that block its energy from reaching the ground.
    And as Mark Steyn asked, “If your model didn’t predict the current, 8+year cooling trend, why should I trust it?”
    It’s a religion. An old-timey, intolerant religion.
    Complete with a vengeful god, Gaia, unleashing plagues (drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, Earth tilting, floods and disease) on an imPrius world.
    There are oracles (global warmmongering “models”), prophets (Gorequamada), plenary indulgences (carbon credits), demons (me) and the worst are heretics (Bjorn Lombord for instance).
    Dissent is not only not tolerated, it’s attacked viciously (worse than holocaust denial).
    I just point and laugh anymore, they’re not worth taking seriously and I just like ticking them off.

  2. They do seem to be attracting a lot more criticism these days.

  3. Re Lombord, I watched this interview on Reason TV.
    http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/84592/
    He’s a believer. He just opposes carbon taxes, which he, reasonably enough, points out have not worked in the past and aren’t likely to work in the future because you won’t be able to get the Chinese and the Indians to stunt their growing economies by doing it. We shouldn’t either, of course. I just wonder if we really should do anything at all–except, for other good reasons, try, as Lombord says, to get the costs of alternatives down to where they’re cheap. They’re terribly expensive at the moment.