Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.

The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.

Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back. Imagine that a climate scientist discovers gigantic flaws in the models and the associated science. Do not imagine that his discovery would be treated respectfully and evaluated on its merits. That would open the door to reversing everything that has been so wonderful for climate scientists.  Who would continue to throw billions of dollars a year at climate scientists if there were no disasters to be prevented? No, the discoverer of any flaw would be demonized and attacked as a pawn of evil interests. Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer come to mind. There are many more skeptical scientists keeping quiet in varying degrees.

Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.

A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.Top Articles By American ThinkerRead More

It’s funny watching a Kennedy struggle with the Rittenhouse casenull

One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.

There is a political reason for using ensembles. In order to receive the benefits flowing from predicting a climate catastrophe, climate science must present a unified front. Dissenters have to be canceled and suppressed. If the IPCC were to select the best model, dozens of other modeling groups would be left out. They would, no doubt, form a dissenting group questioning the authority of those that gave the crown to one particular model. With ensembles, every group gets to participate in a rewarding conspiracy against humanity.

Fitting the model to climate history comes up against the fact that past climate history is poorly documented or unknown. There are scientific groups that specialize in examining and summarizing the vast trove of past climate history. Their summaries improve on the original data in ways that always seem to support global warming catastrophe. The website specializes in exposing this tampering with climate history.

Because so much of climate history is unknown, for example, climate influencing aerosols, the modelers have to make up the missing history. Each modeler is free to make up his own history, so the various models fit different assumed past climates. It would be very surprising if modelers weren’t manipulating their fabricated climates to make their models behave better.

Scientists are always cautioned not to fall in love with a theory or method. If they do, they will lose their objectivity. Facts that support their love will be celebrated, facts that cast doubt on their love will be ignored or forgotten. But if you spend years, or decades, married to a modeling methodology, divorce becomes less and less likely.

Pennsylvania: Do This Instead of Buying Expensive Solar Panels (It’s Genius)POWERHOME SOLARThis is What Happened to Opie’s Mother, According to Andy GriffithDefinitionTelevision’s 35 Most Fake Reality ShowsDefinitionTo Andy Griffith, This is What Happened to Opie’s MotherDefinition

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization in Washington, DC that touts itself as the science advisor to the government. Their advice has some common threads. They never criticize the scientific establishment and they always promote spending more money on science. Like the teachers’ unions, they pretend to support the common good but actually promote their constituency’s special interests.

The Academy sponsored a report on the future of climate modeling. They apparently saw nothing wrong with staffing the study committee with professional climate modelers. The report advocated more money for climate modelers and urged hiring professional public relations people to present results to the public.

The purported climate catastrophe ahead is 100% junk science. If the unlikely climate catastrophe actually happens, it will be coincidental that it was predicted by climate scientists. Most of the supporting evidence is fabricated. There Is no out-of-the-ordinary climate change taking place. The constant comparisons of the current climate with preindustrial climate are nonsense because according to climate theory and the models, the effect of CO2 was extremely minor before 1975. Since 1975 nothing points to a climate catastrophe or a new long-term trend.

The fake climate catastrophe has spawned a fake energy paradigm – replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar electricity. Wind and solar are claimed to be cheaper than traditional sources of electricity but non-fake accounting reveals that wind or solar electricity costs five or even ten times more than traditional electricity, exclusive, of course, of government subsidies and mandates. The reason it costs so much is that the erratic nature of wind and solar requires maintaining the traditional electricity generating system intact and ready to operate when wind and solar fail. Solar fails every night, every cloudy day, and more often in winter. Wind fails at random times, or somewhat predictable times, and often has a seasonal cycle. If the renewable energy advocates were logical, they would be advocating for nuclear. Nuclear is reliable and does not produce CO2.

Climate change and wind and solar electricity are a snipe hunts, diverting the country from serious problems in favor of imaginary problems with imaginary solutions that enrich the promoters and their political friends with status and money.

Photo credit: Pixabay license

Norman Rogers spent 10-years studying climate change and climate change scientists. He is the author of the book Dumb Energy, about wind and solar energy. He is on the board of the CO2 Coalition and was formerly on the board of the National Association of Scholars. He holds a master’s degree in physics.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe. There, you can converse with other American Thinker readers and comment freely (subject to MeWe’s terms of use). The Forum will be fully populated and ready for comments by midday (Eastern time) each day.


Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.

Thank you.


American Thinker on MeWe

| Print| Email

Around The Web

4 Signs That Your Heart May Be At Risk (Check Now)PhysioTruHere Are 23+ Hottest Gifts of 2021TrendingGiftsPennsylvania: Do This Instead of Buying Expensive Solar Panels (It’s Genius)POWERHOME SOLARIt Was the Most Famous Movie Line Ever, but He Was Never Meant to Say ItItsTheVibeThe Crumbling Abandoned Mansions of Famous StarsItsTheVibe[Pics] All-time Top 30 Most Overrated SingersStandardNewssponsored contentFrom the WebPowered by ZergNet

Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ Transformation Is Beyond Staggering

Lady Gaga Shared This Blunt Reaction To Rittenhouse Verdict

Here’s What You Don’t Know About Greta Thunberg

Anna Kendrick Refuses To Do Nude Scenes And It’s No Secret Why

When You Start Sleeping Naked, This Is What Will Happen

Mike Lindell Explains Why God Kicked Trump Out Of White Housesponsored content


|Pennsylvania: Do This Instead of Buying Expensive Solar Panels (It’s Genius)Can I Get Life Insurance After a Heart Attack?Doctors Stunned: This Removes Wrinkles Like Crazy! (Try Tonight)Here Are 23 of the Coolest Gifts for This 2021[Pics] Television’s 35 Most Fake Reality ShowsUnsold 2020 Suvs Almost Being Given Away in Huntingdon (See Prices)|


Pennsylvania: Do This Instead of Buying Expensive Solar Panels (It’s Genius)Here Are 23 of the Coolest Gifts for This 2021Here Are 23+ Hottest Gifts of 2021The Most Successful Attorneys in Huntingdon. See the ListThis Revolutionary Portable Heater for Under $50 is Selling out in the UsThe 25 Strangest Animals Species on EarthThis Is How Much Attorneys Make In 2021 (See Their Salaries)Quiz: 93% Fail This ‘Name the Vintage Item’ Quiz. Will You?Bad Taste Coming Through the Keurig Machine?Ranking The Best Drummers of All-Time 1-25


American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter
American Thinker on MeWe

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

nullsponsored contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

Put Salt In The Corners Of Your Home, What Happens Is Staggering

Why Archie Is Noticeably Different In Meghan Markle’s New Photo

Jeff Foxworthy Kind Of Disappeared And It’s No Secret Why

TV Nerds Who Are Absolutely Gorgeous In Real Life

Tiffany Trump’s Transformation Is Really Beyond Staggering

What The World Needs To Know About McDonald’s Filet-O-FishAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2021

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s