The Global Warming/Climate Change fraudsters developed some computer models. It is known to mathematicians that even the same model will give very different results with slight changes in the choice of starting point. What these fraudsters did was to pick up one result out of many results that each model gave, and no wonder, they picked up the result that showed warming. That has been paraded around the world. Politicians loved it, because it gave them far greater control on economy than even the socialism, so the research grants rained on the fraudsters, and it became a self-sustaining closed system. Leftists in the media joined for the same reason- all felt that the golden chance to destroy free economies has arrived.
Over at americanthinker.com, Robert Ellison takes apart the fraudulent practices of the warmists:
“The chain of reasoning breaks at the very first link. Models are known without a doubt to be inaccurate. It is called “irreducible imprecision” and has been known about since Edward Lorenz plied his convection models in the 1960s. Models can have slightly different starting points as a result of uncertainty in inputs. Many solutions are thus possible, for a single model, that diverge exponentially over the calculation period.
Irreducible imprecision is shown in the diagram below. It is from a paper by Julia Slingo, head of the British Met Office, and Tim Palmer, head of the European Centre for Mid-Range Weather Forecasting.
Source: Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer 2011
It is quite demonstrable math, but mention this on any global warming blog, and the inhabitants will exhibit severe agitation and fear and loathing as cognitive dissonance kicks in. However, it is not quite right either to claim that models are inaccurate because they fail to reproduce the lack of more recent global temperature rise. Instead, what the modelers have done to is arbitrarily pick one of the possible solutions – and discard all the others – based on expectations of how climate will evolve. The choices are too hot – what a surprise.
Their advice, as we have only one planet, is that climate uncertainty requires that unspecified precautionary action be taken to mitigate greenhouse gases. As climate is utterly unpredictable using models, we might have to gloss over the uncertainty of costs and benefits. But let me fill in the detail for them. The policy from global warming progressives involves tales of the collapse of Western civilisation and capitalism leading to less growth, less material consumption, less in CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction, and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the “scholarly” journals.
The progressives are right in one respect. Economies are fragile – movements on markets can be fierce, recovery glacially slow sometimes. There are economic problems – but the problems are not intrinsic to capitalism. They were created by poor judgment. We blundered into it through stupidity. It is not difficult, however, to imagine scenarios in which markets are deliberately destabilized to hasten the end of capitalism. Creeping tax takes, overspending by government, printing money, keeping interest rates too low for too long or too high for too long, penalty taxes on primary inputs, implementing market-distorting subsidies – the scope is endless. These are suspiciously the objectives of global warming progressives – but let’s not call it a conspiracy. Let’s` just call it stupidity.”(from the article)
Read the whole article here.