I¬†repeat: I‚Äôm not a global warming believer. I‚Äôm not a global warming denier.¬†I‚Äôve long believed¬†that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.
‚ÄúThe debate is settled,‚ÄĚ asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his¬†latest State of the Union address. ‚ÄúClimate change is a fact.‚ÄĚ Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less)¬†or be subject to termination.
Now we learn from¬†a massive randomized study¬†‚ÄĒ 90,000 women followed for 25 years ‚ÄĒ that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives¬†unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.
So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great¬†physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today‚Äôs climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?
The science is never settled…as we learn more we discover more.
They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: ‚ÄúYou sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.‚ÄĚ Not surprisingly, these models have been ‚Äúconsistently and spectacularly wrong‚ÄĚ in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists¬†Richard McNider and John Christy¬†‚ÄĒ and always, amazingly, in the same direction. ¬† Read more »