The Boss called in his science advisor, Galileo. The Boss says “Galileo, I am being asked to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) atmospheric emissions resulting from the use of fossil fuels. Should I do it; put in a plan to cutback fossil fuel use? I know I can trust you because you, like your namesake think rationally not just go along with the crowd.”
Galileo responds “You have to decide based on (a) what we know or (b) what climate computers forecast the world will be like in 50 to 100 years if you don’t do something now.”
The Boss says “What’s the difference between what we know now and the computer forecasts?”
“Well Boss” Galileo replied “you know that those who want you to cut back fossil fuel use say that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere will result in an unacceptable increase in global temperature, flooding resulting from ice melt, droughts in some parts of the world and excessive rains in others. Plus famine, war, pestilence and death”
“How do they know these things will happen?” asked the Boss.
“It’s the computers, Boss.”
“OK, then tell me what you meant about what we know now.”
Galileo said “Well despite a continuing increase in atmospheric CO2, the global temperatures have not risen in over ten years and the ocean temperatures have declined since 2003 when the Argo Buoy system was put into service. The Argo buoys are the only credible ocean temperature measurements. Sea level rise has been steady for hundreds of years and in fact there has been a slight decrease in the rate of rise recently. Further more, the most recent studies have decoupled CO2 rise and violent weather. Much of the 4 Horses of the Apocalypse talk is based on un-peer reviewed papers by organizations like World Wildlife Fund that are advocates of the man-made global warming theory.”
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
“But surely the computers must have forecast this as I have heard of these projections for 20 years, even before I became Boss”
“ Boss, these climate computers are not skillful.”
“Skillful, what does that mean?”
“That is a way of saying they are unable to make accurate forecasts. This is because the globe’s climate is so complex and the computer programmers and the scientist that provide technical data do not fully understanding its complexity. So they backcast and add constants (fudge factors, speaking technically) to model the past. But this is only of limited success when trying to predict the climate in the future. It is my understanding they mostly fiddle with the output until it gives the desired outcome that matches their predisposition.”
“My, my that doesn’t seem ligit.”
“Well Boss, you can see why they do this. The people are unlikely to agree to draconian laws that kill their economies. But if you tell them that the computer says that in 50 to 100 years from now things will be pretty bad here on Earth if they don’t. Even though these computers are woeful at making accurate predictions, the advocates of man-made global warming pretend they are believable else the whole man-made global warming industry would collapse.”
“So Galileo tell me what you think we should do.”
“First I want you to know that I believe the globe is warming and has been since the last Ice Age. But the warming by and large is due to natural forces and does not seem to present any danger of getting out of hand. Right now, for example, the total global ice is increasing, ocean temperatures are on the decline,. I don’t believe we know enough to potentially destroy our economy by restricting the use of fossil fuels.”
“Well said, but maybe the climate computers will be able to predict the future.”
“I have some thoughts on that , Boss. Perhaps more powerful computers and increased knowledge of how the climate works will someday yield accurate forecasts. But how can we know when that happens? I believe climate forecasts must be accurate for 20 or more years into the future. I would have all the best computer programmers and climate scientists set up from 1 to 5 computers, let them make projections for climate in 20 years hence. If any of them are found to make accurate projections after 20 years, then lets use that program to make decisions. It is likely that continuing development of this science will produce new candidates for this test. Every 5 years new entries should be put into this program and we can wait for that computer program’s projection demonstration after 20 years. With out demonstrated performance accuracy, we never should allow computer climate forecasts set policy.”
“In the meantime, we can work on improved energy technologies. We will encourage this effort, but we should not force unproven, unreliable and costly technologies on the public.”
“Thanks Galileo.”
Climate Change Sanity 