There’s a favourite cartoon for the climate cultists, which they apparently think is a knock-down argument against anyone who questions their holy “science”. “What if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?” Which illustrates exactly the problem with the climate cult: not only do they refuse to even countenance that they might be wrong, but they really believe that being wrong is utterly without negative consequences.
Only a true “denialist” would argue that any policy — for or against the climate orthodoxy that current climate change is uniquely catastrophic and entirely human-caused — is totally without costs and only ever offers benefits. For instance, renewable energy might lower greenhouse gases some time in the future, but, as we’re already seeing, at ruinous cost to poor people who are often having to literally choose between eating or freezing.
Worse, though, the denialists of the climate cult will never, ever admit that the whole edifice of their cult might be wrong.
What if climate science and the computer models relied on by the scientists for their catastrophic forecasts are not reliable, either of themselves or in respect of their results so that their forecasts are not a suitable scientific basis for policies.
You might as well ask a religious zealot, what if your god is not the one, true God, after all?
But that doesn’t mean that the reliability of climate models — which are, it must be remembered, the sole basis for the catastrophic claims of the climate cult — cannot be questioned. If the models really are, in the words of Japanese climate modeller Nishimura Mototaka, “useless junk”, then so is any policy prescription based on them.
I have read a number of climate reports and have to say that they do not convince me of an impending climate catastrophe of regular violent, raging storms, cyclones and tornados, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, landmass inundations, dying polar bears and dying people, that is, the perfect storm, which is man-made and carbon-based.
The reason I am unconvinced, is because the methodology by which climate scientists ascertain yester-year’s and today’s climate and weather data, determine the climate (or is that weather) relationships and generate predictive models whose 20 or 30-year forecasts demand immediate corrective action may be mathematically correct but still bear no relation to reality. That is the nature of mathematics. But if the opinions of other earth scientists are to be believed, they too have doubts about the methodology; after all, GIGO is a valid rule of thumb for all predictive models.
The basic problem, whenever climate cultists gibber about “record” temperatures, is that the record is so short-lived and unreliable. Most are scarcely a century old. The most rigorous — satellite measurements — much less than even that. And these records frequently disagree with one another.
So, it’s often garbage in — and in through a filter which is itself fast becoming a piece of junk. Peer-review, particularly in an incestuous discipline like climate science, is increasingly “pal review” — and the pals are, one and all, absolutely steeped in the bedrock assumptions of climate orthodoxy. Heretics have, often explicitly and with malice aforethought, been rigorously excluded from the field.
This is far from mere academic beard-stroking. From bad science flows bad policy. Just as the delusions of “Marxist biology” led directly to the calamity of the Great Leap Forward, the delusions of the climate cult are leading directly to disastrous policy decisions.
The decision by the government to declare Australia net-zero emissions by 2050 may be a clever political move; but if climate science can not be shown to be reliable then the net-zero decision is fool-hardy with both economic and national defence ramifications […]
If governments are going to make policy decisions based upon forecasts by a relatively new science, decisions that will mean major, orchestrated changes to our lives, it is fundamentally important to establish if that science can be trusted.
Spectator Australia
The evidence, from the long march of decades of climate “predictions” which have steadily failed, to the “Climategate emails” that ripped the scab from the festering sore of “climate science”, is so far very much establishing that it cannot.