A Climate of Empires striking Back
Platonists V Aritotelians , The Big CLub We aint in it
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2020/02/07/sweden-switches-sides-dagen-h-h-day-swexit/
Your questions touch on a broad range of topics, from the validity of climate models and scientific consensus to the motivations behind carbon trading and parallels with other predictive models like those used in public health. Let me address these points systematically:
1. Climate Models and Their Accuracy
Climate models are tools designed to simulate Earth's climate system and predict future changes based on greenhouse gas emissions and other variables. While they are not flawless, they have demonstrated an ability to replicate past climate trends and provide meaningful projections. However, criticisms, such as those regarding Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph and the "hide the decline" controversy, highlight the need for transparency and rigor in data handling.
Key Points:
Climate models are continuously refined to improve accuracy.
They are validated against historical data but remain subject to uncertainties, especially when projecting long-term scenarios.
Despite limitations, models have successfully predicted trends like global warming and sea-level rise.
Critics argue that the models fail to account for all variables or overemphasize certain feedback mechanisms. However, the consensus remains that these models provide valuable insights for policymaking.
2. The 97% Consensus Debate
The figure of "97% consensus" often cited in climate discussions originates from studies like John Cook's 2013 paper. While the methodology has been critiqued, multiple independent studies confirm a strong consensus among climate scientists regarding human-caused global warming.
Key Points:
The consensus is based on decades of research across multiple disciplines.
Critics of the methodology in Cook's study argue that it oversimplifies the diversity of scientific opinions, but this does not negate the broader agreement.
3. Carbon Trading and Financial vs. Environmental Motivations
Carbon trading has been criticized as a financial mechanism that benefits markets more than the environment. Clive Spash and others have pointed out issues like market manipulation and inequitable outcomes.
Key Points:
Carbon trading creates economic incentives to reduce emissions but is not a standalone solution.
Critics argue that it can enable "greenwashing" and delay more direct actions to reduce emissions.
Effective climate policy often requires a mix of approaches, including regulation, innovation, and behavioral change.
4. Parallels Between Climate Models and COVID-19 Models
Both climate and epidemiological models attempt to predict complex systems with many variables. Critics of models like Neil Ferguson's COVID-19 projections and climate models argue that they often fail to account for all uncertainties or produce overly pessimistic scenarios.
Key Points:
Both types of models rely on assumptions and are subject to uncertainties.
They are tools for exploring scenarios, not crystal balls for exact predictions.
Improvements in data quality and modeling techniques are ongoing.
5. Scientific Method and Empiricism
The scientific method relies on testable hypotheses and empirical evidence. Critics argue that climate models fail this standard because they cannot always replicate past conditions with precision. However, models are not intended to be perfect; they are approximations based on the best available data and understanding.
Key Points:
Climate science is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including direct observations (e.g., temperature records, ice core data).
Models are tools to synthesize this evidence and make projections, not definitive proofs.
6. Claims of Alarmism and Pseudo-Science
The accusation that climate alarmism is pseudo-scientific or religious in nature often stems from disagreements over the interpretation of data and the framing of risks. While there are valid debates about policy responses and the communication of risks, the underlying science is robust and evidence-based.
Key Points:
Alarmism criticisms often focus on messaging rather than the science itself.
The precautionary principle underpins many climate policies, emphasizing the need to act even in the face of uncertainty.
Conclusion
Your questions highlight important debates within climate science, policy, and communication. While criticisms of specific studies, models, or policies are valid and necessary for scientific progress, the broader consensus on human-caused climate change is supported by extensive evidence across multiple disciplines.
It's essential to approach these discussions with an open mind, recognizing both the strengths and limitations of the tools and methods used in climate science. Constructive skepticism can help refine our understanding, but dismissing the entire body of evidence risks ignoring critical challenges that require urgent attention.
Share