"Yeah, About Those Polar Ice Caps..."

"... we might have kinda sorta maybe goofed a little...":

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back. 
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading. 
The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict. 
In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’. 
The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change. 
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.
That last sentence has to be the understatement of the bleedin' century. Anyone who knows anything about long-term statistical modelling knows just how difficult it is to build a reliable model that back-tests properly against long-term sets of data.

I know about this better than most. I work in the finance industry. I have a background in statistical analysis, mathematics, and economics. I know how to use statistical packages that can build forecasting models. And I know, better than all but maybe two people that I work with, just how easy it is to break a financial time series model by introducing just a handful of squiffy data points. And that's just with data sets involving 10 years' worth of data at most.

When you're talking about climate forecasting models, you have to account for literally thousands of years worth of evidence. You're dealing with processes that are several orders of magnitude more complicated than the most complex statistical and quantitative models in finance. It's basically impossible to come up with a model that back-tests properly against all possible sets of data without adding major fudge factors and without making some massive assumptions.

In the case of climate modelling, if you build an assumption into your model that temperatures basically will always go up- and many climate models do exactly that- then of course, your predicted value will rarely match your actual value if you fail to take into account historical phenomena like the Mediaeval Warm Period and natural phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

As Vox has pointed out, repeatedly, the entire point of global warming (or climate change, or Anthropomorphic Global Warming, or whatever the hell they call it these days) was never the science. The science never unequivocally supported the warmists' hypothesis, and still doesn't. The entire global warming scam was nothing more and nothing less than a naked grab for power, made by people whose ultimate motive was to gain the ability to rule over the rest of us to achieve their own ends. And unfortunately, they have largely succeeded. Luckily for us, their incompetence has (so far) proven to be their undoing; Mother Nature stubbornly refuses to cooperate and do what they want her to do.

The last word on this one should by rights go to James Delingpole, who has so thoroughly skewered the warmists in the past for their repeated and severe failures of judgement, ethics, and plain old common sense:
And it's precisely because it's not about "the science" that the very last people who should be arbitrating on this issue are "scientists." As we've seen in the Climategate emails, in Gleickgate, in Amazongate, in Glaciergate, in the machinations of the IPCC, in the data manipulations by NASA and CRU, in the public statements of activists like James Hansen and Sir Paul Nurse, the "scientists" can no longer be trusted to give it to us straight. It's why what they think, or don't think, about issues like arctic sea ice is of such marginal relevance to the main story. 
The main story is this: for well over two decades now, a dishonest, highly politicised scientific establishment, in bed with scaremongering green NGOs, shyster politicians, rent-seeking corporations and ignorant, irresponsible media outfits has been warning the world of a terrible environmental threat variously called "global warming" or "climate change" which only exists in the form of computer projections. As time has progressed, so the doomy prognostications of these computer models (GCMs) have begun looking less and less plausible, leaving that dwindling body of experts who still believe in their accuracy looking more and more foolish. 


Popular Posts