Intelligent Design

Why Climate Models Are Worthless

Spread the love

An article by Tim Ball, Ph.D.  Excerpt:

The recent article by Nancy Green at WUWT is an interesting esoteric discussion about models. Realities about climate models are much more prosaic. They don’t and can’t work because data, knowledge of atmospheric, oceanographic, and extraterrestrial mechanisms, and computer capacity are all totally inadequate. Computer climate models are a waste of time and money.

Inadequacies are confirmed by the complete failure of all forecasts, predictions, projections, prognostications, or whatever they call them. It is one thing to waste time and money playing with climate models in a laboratory, where they don’t meet minimum scientific standards, it is another to use their results as the basis for public policies where the economic and social ramifications are devastating. Equally disturbing and unconscionable is the silence of scientists involved in the IPCC who know the vast difference between the scientific limitations and uncertainties and the certainties produced in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

6 Replies to “Why Climate Models Are Worthless

  1. 1
    jw777 says:

    Agreed: man cannot prophesy with data sets.

    Pascal’s wager has never been quite enough to change the deepest beliefs of an individual; but I don’t see any reason why a reasonable man shouldn’t consider supporting energy policy and technological changes to move us away from fossil fuels, whether or not climate alarmists are accurate in their predictions, especially as mankind seeks to become a force of nature.

    Non-isotopic uranium and thorium burning solves everyone’s problems, no matter what your ideological launch point, no matter what your prediction. Getting them viable, built and running should be where most of the effort is aimed – not at dismissing genuine climate skeptics, nor at dismissing genuine alarmists.

  2. 2
    Jon Garvey says:

    Just looking at estimates, there is maybe 100 years of shale gas in US. Here in UK, perhaps 40 years of North Sea oil, though we’ve used up the easily-reached supplies I remember they predicted 40 years ago (as if it were yesterday). We’ve more or less given up on economic extraction of coal.

    No doubt other fossil energy sources will turn up, but as stewards of God’s creation, our civilisation is piss-poor. What sane society is happy as long as things don’t fall permanently apart until their grandchildren grow up?

    I agree with jw777: +/- global warming doesn’t alter the scandal.

  3. 3
    ppolish says:

    Seems to me that global warming and/or rising CO2 levels are not random, not natural. It’s almost seems like there is some design or intelligent agent behind it.

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    The point of the OP is not to come down on one side or the other of energy policy. The point of the OP is that the smug certitude of those who announce the science is “settled” and that the debate is over is unwarranted.

  5. 5
    Joe says:

    If CO2 drives the temperature, and CO2 has steadily been increasing, then the temperature should be steadily increasing, but it isn’t. I am told that is because there are many factors involved. Well if that is true then why are we focusing only on CO2?

    Give me warming- we can actually do something to avoid floods a droughts-> We can make spillways along rivers to mitigate flooding. We can take water from where we have it or too much of it and have it go to places that are parched. We do that with aqueducts, canals, and tunnels.

    OR we can sit around, panic and point fingers. The climate is going to change regardless of us because that is what the climate does.

  6. 6
    jstanley01 says:

    jw77 @ 1

    Non-isotopic uranium and thorium burning solves everyone’s problems, no matter what your ideological launch point, no matter what your prediction.

    Regarding thorium, it looks like China is beating the U.S. to the punch

Leave a Reply