Pride Month, a month-long “celebration” contrived to promote every conceivable sexual behavior, orientation, and identity (except the one on which families are built), has yet to officially begin as of this writing. And yet it has already been the subject of multiple,...
Mathematical Modeling Illusions of Global Warming
For three decades now, man caused global warming alarmists have harassed society with stories of gloom and doom resulting from their belief that the end of the world as we know it is imminent as a result of the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by the burning of fossil fuel.
They are exercising precisely what prominent writer H.L. Mencken described early in the past century as “the whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be lead to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. The man-caused global warming or climate change scare may well be the best hobgoblin ever conceived.
It has half the world clamoring to be lead to safety from climate change without a shred of physical evidence. Every single statement issued to support these fear mongering claims now presented in a new 1500 page report from 13 separate agencies of the federal government by 300 Obama appointed scientists, has no basis in physical measurements or observations. What they do have are mathematical equations considered to be models of the Earth’s climate. They have only a handful of the hundreds of variables that do in fact impact our climate and the numbers inserted for the variables used are little more than guesses. Our government has financed more than one hundred efforts to model our planet for the better part of three decades. They continue to do so though none could ever predict the known past or after a decade of study accurately predicted what was to happen ten years later.
The problem facing real scientists who study climate with no paid for bias is that the public has no clue what a mathematical model actually is, how it works and what they can and can not do. So let’s try to simplify the subject in order to pull the wool back off the eyes of all Americans, and the rest of the world’s population as well.
There are many ways in which things or systems can be described. Before we build buildings or airplanes we make physical small scale models and test them against the stress and performances that will be required of them when they are actually built. When dealing with systems that are totally beyond our control we try and describe them with computer programs or mathematical equations that we hope may give answers to the questions we have about the system today and in the future. Historically mathematical descriptions of such systems were used to better understand how the system might work. We would attempt to understand the variables that affect the outcomes of the system. Then we would alter the variables and see how the outcomes are effected. This is called sensitivity testing, the very best use of mathematical models.
Historically we were never foolish enough to make economic decisions based on predictions calculated from equations we think might control how nature works. This authors first introduction to using math to try and understand nature occurred almost 60 years ago performing graduate work on contaminated fluid transport in subsurface rocks. It was fun and instructive but never created a crystal ball of the future. That is exactly what the well paid math modelers throughout the academic world are now claiming the ability to do.
All problems can be viewed as having three stages, observation, modeling and prediction. Perhaps the most active area for mathematical modeling is the economy and the stock market. No one has ever succeeded in getting it right and there are far less variables than occur in determining the climate of our planet. For many years the Wall Street Journal selected five eminent economic analysts to select a stock they were sure would rise in the following month. Then they had a chimpanzee throw five darts at a wall covered with that days stock market results. A month later they determined who did better choosing winners, the analysts or the chimpanzees darts. For many many years the chimps usually won so they concluded the contests. I am not saying today’s mathematical modelers would not beat chimps throwing darts at future Earth temperatures, but I will not object if you reach that conclusion. Their predictions for the past 20 years could just as well have been reached with darts because they have all been wrong.
Consider the following: we do not know all the variables but we are quite sure they are likely in the hundreds. We know how very few work. Clouds must play a significant role in the planet’s climate and we do not even know how they work. Yet today’s modelers believe they can tell you the planet’s climate decades or even a century in the future and want you to manage your economy accordingly. Either they are crazy to think this or we are crazy to believe them. I suspect both to be true.
Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysics laboratory once calculated that if we could know all the variables affecting climate and plugged them into the world’s largest computer, it would take 40 years to reach a conclusive answer.
Should we waste a single brain cell even considering the doomsday predictions that 300 scientists working in 13 government agencies all hired by President Obama are telling us we must all plan for. The answer is obvious, we should all go back to preparing for a wonderful winter holiday.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.