Climate Insanity

There seems to be a gradual realisation in the climate science arena that the various computer models of climate are hall marked with “Failures, Flops and Fumbles” and that if only we could get extra funding to construct even more complex models, then all will be solved.

Albert Einstein is alleged to have written that insanity could be defined as the expectation that repeating an experiment will lead to new results, here by the use of ever more complex global circulation models finally proving that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause climate problems.

The point I want to make is that in terms of the scientific method, if the various iterations of the global circulation models (GCMs) or climate models keep failing, then it isn’t the models that are at fault per se, but that the theory these models are based on which is wrong; to wit that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes the atmosphere’s temperature to rise.

All computerised climate models assume as a starting point the definition of climate sensitivity, that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause a rise in atmospheric temperature, and if these models keep failing, as is the documented case, then it’s the theory that is the problem, not the models. Since global warming is inbuilt into the climate models, and the models still fail, then it’s the assumption of climate sensitivity that appears to be flawed.

As I pointed to in a previous post, the belief that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a Venusian Hell here on earth was based on Carl Sagan’s fabrication of the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus to counter Velikovsky’s deduction that if Venus was indeed seen by our ancestors to have been recently formed, as related in various histories, then it had to be extremely hot as a result of its relative youth as a planet.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Science and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s