EARTH DAY: The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Trump administration is, it goes without saying, deeply anti-science. In fact, it’s anti-objective reality. But its control of the government remains limited; it didn’t extend far enough to prevent the release of the latest National Climate Assessment , which details current and expected future impacts of global warming on the United States.
True, the report was released on Black Friday, clearly in the hope that it would get lost in the shuffle. The good news is that the ploy didn’t work.
The assessment basically confirms, with a great deal of additional detail, what anyone following climate science already knew: Climate change poses a major threat to the nation, and some of its adverse effects are already being felt. For example, the report, written before the latest California disaster, highlights the growing risks of wildfire in the Southwest; global warming, not failure to rake the leaves , is why the fires are getting ever bigger and more dangerous.
But the Trump administration and its allies in Congress will, of course, ignore this analysis. Denying climate change, no matter what the evidence, has become a core Republican principle. And it’s worth trying to understand both how that happened and the sheer depravity involved in being a denialist at this point.
Wait, isn’t depravity too strong a term? Aren’t people allowed to disagree with conventional wisdom, even if that wisdom is supported by overwhelming scientific consensus?
Yes, they are — as long as their arguments are made in good faith. But there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers. And denying science for profit, political advantage or ego satisfaction is not O.K.; when failure to act on the science may have terrible consequences, denial is, as I said, depraved.
The best recent book I’ve read on all this is “ The Madhouse Effect ” by Michael E. Mann, a leading climate scientist, with cartoons by Tom Toles. As Mann explains, climate denial actually follows in the footsteps of earlier science denial, beginning with the long campaign by tobacco companies to confuse the public about the dangers of smoking.
The shocking truth is that by the 1950s, these companies already knew that smoking caused lung cancer; but they spent large sums propping up the appearance that there was a real controversy about this link. In other words, they were aware that their product was killing people, but they tried to keep the public from understanding this fact so they could keep earning profits. That qualifies as depravity, doesn’t it?
In many ways, climate denialism resembles cancer denialism. Businesses with a financial interest in confusing the public — in this case, fossil-fuel companies — are prime movers. As far as I can tell, every one of the handful of well-known scientists who have expressed climate skepticism has received large sums of money from these companies or from dark money conduits like DonorsTrust — the same conduit, as it happens, that supported Matthew Whitaker , the new acting attorney general, before he joined the Trump administration.
But climate denial has sunk deeper political roots than cancer denial ever did. In practice, you can’t be a modern Republican in good standing unless you deny the reality of global warming, assert that it has natural causes or insist that nothing can be done about it without destroying the economy. You also have to either accept or acquiesce in wild claims that the overwhelming evidence for climate change is a hoax, that it has been fabricated by a vast global conspiracy of scientists.
Why would anyone go along with such things? Money is still the main answer: Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take. However, ideology is also a factor: If you take environmental issues seriously, you are led to the need for government regulation of some kind, so rigid free-market ideologues don’t want to believe that environmental concerns are real (although apparently forcing consumers to subsidize coal is fine).
Finally, I have the impression that there’s an element of tough-guy posturing involved — real men don’t use renewable energy, or something.
And these motives matter. If important players opposed climate action out of good-faith disagreement with the science, that would be a shame but not a sin, calling for better efforts at persuasion. As it is, however, climate denial is rooted in greed, opportunism, and ego. And opposing action for those reasons is a sin.
Indeed, it’s depravity, on a scale that makes cancer denial seem trivial. Smoking kills people, and tobacco companies that tried to confuse the public about that reality were being evil. But climate change isn’t just killing people; it may well kill civilization. Trying to confuse the public about that is evil on a whole different level. Don’t some of these people have children?
And let’s be clear: While Donald Trump is a prime example of the depravity of climate denial, this is an issue on which his whole party went over to the dark side years ago. Republicans don’t just have bad ideas; at this point, they are, necessarily, bad people.
Initial image: A trailer park destroyed by the fire that swept through Paradise, Calif., this month. J ohn Locher/Associated Press
Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
Please read the seed. Please Comment on-topic. Thank you.
[Removed]
I would imagine, but do not know, that certain financial interests have already used science to determine winners and losers for areas that will be affected by climate change. I also suspect that these same entities with the same ideologies are looking forward to their ability to make 'certain portions' of the Earth's populations totally inconsequential. If by chance any of these summations bear out the World will witness and suffer the effects of the first International Oligarchy.
"Knowing" on the right is not based on fact. It's a matter of faith. There is a Creed to define membership in the clan, just as there are Creeds to define membership in the Christian community.
Climate change denial is one element of that Creed. To be a "True Conservative", one must be a climate change denialist. Realty... facts... have nothing to do with it.
Nah. The false narrative is Birtherism and all that was wrought after it, including this discussion here.
Not to worry Bob, once they have finished trashing our Country we can move to that Texas sized floating plastic heap in the Pacific. I could do with a bit of Island living.
Wonderful idea... Will there be room for six billion?
Sure, we will need to eat:)
On a serious note, it is rather remarkable that the trashing of our planet can be denied on any level. Presuming these folks have operating optical nerves, all one has to do is take a stroll down the nearest roadway and marvel at the human piggery tossed to the roadside. That is a simple example of how little concern many folks give to our environment.
Pathetic in my estimation.
Soylent Green?
IMNAAHO, there's something wrong with the mental processes of these people. Some portion of their brain is inoperative.
Simple hypocrisy won't do as an explanation. The worst hypocrite in the world doesn't really want to destroy the world. They genuinely do not see the reality that normal people see.
Ah, one of my favorite movies. To enter the other side ala Edward G. Robinsons methodology would be quite nice.
Sadly there is a lot of that going around today, if it was only the climate it would be one thing, but it seems that science is questioned at every corner of late.
My simple answer, just plain old ignorance.
It's more than that. It's willful ignorance. I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a person actively desiring to be ignorant.
I used to have the very same difficulty, but I think I understand it now.
In super summary, it is confirmation bias resulting from people picking something they really, really want to be true and shaping their reality to conform to the desire.
Politically, there are people who really, really want Trump to be an historic change agent for good in the federal government and they will shape reality to conform to this desire. So, it follows that whatever Trump utters is truth. If Trump deems climate science to be nonsense the sycophantic supporter will be inclined to add that to their current beliefs.
What still amazes me, however, is the degree to which some people can shape reality to conform to their desired truth. YECs, flat-Earthers, etc. illustrate how critical thinking can be totally trashed in the pursuit of a desired truth.
[deleted]
Extremists generally qualify in what I have described. Almost by definition, an extremist is pursuing a desired truth at the expense of critical thinking.
A denier of climate change and of anthropogenic change factors would also be an extremist.
Like AOC, Omar, Tlaib, De Blasio, Cuomo, Sanders, Newson, ALL the 20 democrats running to be President, Et El ?
You made me say this Bob, I give you one Mr. Donald J. Trump the Dean of Ignoramus U.
No, if you disregard the emotive tone, Krugman notes that denying the scientific fact of climate change and the fact that anthropogenic factors are in play (albeit not precisely determined) is irrational. And it is irrational to deny the science. Just like it was irrational to deny the health effects of infusing lead into our environment through lead-based gasoline or to deny the health effects of smoking.
In my view we should not be playing the partisan game of extremes (AGW is pending doom vs. AGW is nonsense) but rather be rational adults and recognize that we have a problem and start working on practical mitigation. Krugman, to me, is arguing that climate change denial is harmful and I agree. And the longer we kick the can down the road the fewer options we have (and the more expensive the options become).
If following the science and then seeking rational mitigation is 'denial' then I will laugh at one who offers such a label.
What, specifically, do you mean by 'the science'? Do you consider mistakes by individual scientists, or propaganda by interested parties publishing their own science-based data to be 'the science'? If so then you need to learn the difference between science in general and individual findings.
Science, as a whole, is a self-correcting mechanism. The fact that people like Gore published aggressive ' AGW is pending doom' predictions that were wrong does not take out climate science. Unless, of course, you are cherry-picking in which case I will note again the difference between the big picture and individual findings.
Looks like you fall into the science denier camp. AGW is nonsense, eh? Partisan extremism?
Evidence Of Anthropogenic Global Warming
Looks from your comment that you dismiss climate science in general. That, FR, is precisely extremism and that earns the label ridiculous.
That is what you got out of my words? Confirmation bias.
This does not follow from what I wrote. Looks like a juvenile attempt to pick a fight by making wild allegations out of thin air. Is it possible you would behave this way?
Being skeptical is correct. You claim to be a healthy skeptic yet I do not see healthy skepticism in your comments but rather partisan extremism. My position is to follow the science (not follow select scientists) to where it leads and, based on that, act in a way that mitigates the anthropogenic factors. Your position, apparently, is that AGW is nonsense. You have offered no argument for why you hold this extreme partisan position.
Are you able to offer a solid argument based on well established facts as to why we should all consider AGW a non-issue?
Okay, then state your position: should we take AGW seriously and continue to try to understand the anthropogenic factors and how best to mitigate them in a practical manner, or should we consider AGW a non-issue and do nothing? (I did not include the third option of going to the full AGW doomsday extreme.)
Dr. Paul Krugman provides exemplary justification for disregarding the mindless intellectual arguments of the entitled elite. Keep in mind that as an economist, Paul Krugman is only interested in the money (and especially profits). So, Krugman is essentially making a bait-and-switch argument without disclosing his professional motivations to generate profit.
Dr. Krugman's argument skirts the main issue; capitalism is incapable of solving problems when consumers are the actual cause of the problem. Krugman may be placing blame on businesses but his ill-defined remedies depend upon regulating consumption. That's the tobacco model so popular with intellectual arguments used by the entitled elite. The problem with tobacco isn't supply; the problem is consumption. Tobacco that is not consumed doesn't cause any problems. The same is true of climate change. Consumers expect to be able to consume as much electricity as they want, any time that they want. And consumers demand the lowest price for the electricity they use. If people were not dramatically increasing their consumption of electricity then there wouldn't be a problem.
Dr. Krugman is a climate denier, too. Krugman understands that consumption provides the market signals and profit incentives that drive production. That's how economics works. So, Krugman understands that he is just spraying spittle for no useful purpose. The only way Krugman can directly address climate change would be to demand abandoning economics altogether. That's an idiots argument.
Do you have anything to say, pertinent to the seed?
I already have. As I pointed out, the tobacco model of addressing problems relies on punitive measures toward consumers without actually blaming consumers.
Climate change has been caused by consumption. Consumers are the primary source of carbon emissions. People are consuming large amounts of electricity for a variety of non-essential purposes. That is also true for other consumption of energy besides electricity. The tobacco model imposes punitive measures on non-essential consumption.
Free markets cannot address problems when consumers are the cause of the problem. Only closed, centrally planned economies can overcome consumer choices for products that cause problems.
Keep in mind that Dr. Krugman won a Nobel Prize for contributing to theories about how monopolies arise. And a monopoly is a non-governmental form of closed, centrally planned economics. Part of Krugman's argument is that fossil fuels have achieved monopolistic control of energy markets (which does not stand up to close scrutiny). However, Krugman glosses over the fact that consumers demanding products are what allows monopolies to form. Without consumers there cannot be a monopoly. So, the unspoken argument still resolves to requiring punitive measures on the types of consumption considered harmful. But who decides what types of consumption need be punished?
Overpopulation is the problem, but no leader wants to even speak about it
It seems that the loudest proponents of the myth of climate change appear to know nothing of the science involved or how it is be corrupted and faked to get data to fit the observations.
And they have no idea as to how it could be mitigated or stopped if it were actually happening. It would surely take more than a carbon tax. And it would involve the cooperation of every nation and human on Earth.
"Climate change poses a major threat to the nation, and some of its adverse effects are already being felt."
Which "Nation" ?
The NEED to Go "Green" is nothing more than a need for Mo' "Money" to Big Gov., so our Government has MORE to spend on their typical nonsense !
Anyone who respects truth and objectivity will automatically dismiss as lacking credibility anything written by Krugman who has become a genuine nutcase over the last 15 years.
Secondly, science has confirmed the obvious that the Earth is undergoing climate cycles since it's beginning and will continue to do so. the phony claims to science are those who promote the Anthropogenic causation and that mankind has any means of changing these climate cycles. A Substantial number of leading scientists on this issue have thoroughly debunked the man made causation leading some of them to even quit the IPPC
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland: former member of the Dutch United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) committee. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”
Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand: expert reviewer on every draft of the IPCC reports since 1990, and author of more than 100 scientific publications. “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.”
UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar: PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of the IPCC’s Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions. “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”
N o significant cause- and-effect from CO 2 on the global surface temperature, i.e. on climate . The global temperature was decreasing from 1940 to 1975. Since 1998 the global temperature has not increased, rather showing a decreasing trend, while the very low CO 2 level in air apparently is steadily rising. Tom V Segalstad, University of Oslo
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO 2 : on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
Tom V. Segalstad
Mineralogical-Geological Museum
University of Oslo
Sars' Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo
Norway
Biography of Tom Victor Segalstad
Born in Norway in 1949.
University degrees (natural sciences with geology) from the University of Oslo.
Has conducted university research, publishing, and teaching in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, USA.
At present keeping a professional position as Associate Professor of Resource- and Environmental Geology at the University of Oslo.
Past Head There is of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo (for a total of 12 years).
Past Head of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo.
Member of different international and national professional working groups and committees, including Expert Reviewer to the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).
PRINCETON, NJ (January 3, 2011)—S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”
Singer, a leading scientific skeptic of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), is an atmospheric physicist, and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization that began challenging the published findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1990s. SEPP established the Leipzig Declaration, a statement of dissent from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by over one hundred scientists and meteorologists.
Asked what he would like to see happen in regard to public opinion and policy on climate change, Singer replied,
I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled, such as the cause. If mostly natural, as NIPCC concludes, then the public policies currently discussed are pointless, hugely expensive, and wasteful of resources that could better be applied to real societal problems.
NIPCC is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, another group established by Singer. In 2009 NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered ,an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming. Singer believes that global warming exists but that human contributions to it are minimal. In the interview Singer said he believed his efforts in the last twenty years had been successful in disproving the notion that “the science is settled.”
He is professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and he was the founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami (1964-1967) and the Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics University of Maryland (1953-1962).
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
Correct; to the extreme even. Ever hear of the Ice Age? Given time, the planet on its own will quite likely wipe out most (if not all) life.
Do you deny anthropogenic factors? Do you claim that we have no significant impact on the climate? Show me the science behind that. Not mere opinions of select scientists, the actual data.
Of course I deny we have no significiant impact as do all the Scientists I listed and many more I have available to post. I posted some of the scientific data from scientists like Segalstad and can post many more.
Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’
by Dr. Robert E. Stevenson
The Big, Deep-Blue Sea
To one extent or another, I’ve been involved with the relationships of the oceans on climates, and vice versa for the past 50 years. It was when I became Secretary General of IAPSO, in 1987, to work closely with our sister associations of Meteorology (IAMAP), Hydrology (IAHS), and Volcanology (IAVCEI), all within our “mother union” International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) that I first had to face the claim coming from the United Nations Environment Program and World Meteorological Organization that global warming of the atmosphere was in full swing, induced by the over-enthusiasm of mankind to travel, keep warm, and feed themselves. By their desire to enhance their lives, human beings were increasing, untenably, the CO 2 content of the Earth’s “greenhouse.” I was frankly surprised by this claim, and believed it not one whit.
As an oceanographer, I’d been around the world, once or twice, and I was rather convinced that I knew the factors that influenced the Earth’s climate. The oceans, by virtue of their enormous density and heat-storage capacity, are the dominant influence on our climate. It is the heat budget and the energy that flows into and out of the oceans that basically determines the mean temperature of the global atmosphere. These interactions, plus evaporation, are quite capable of cancelling the slight effect of man-produced CO 2 .
Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant based in Hawaii, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987 to 1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. A member of the scientific advisory board of 21st Century, he is the author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences
March 7, 2008
OCEAN TEMPERATURE AND CO2
Global Climate Change Has Natural Causes
by Lance Endersbee
Professor Endersbee is the former Dean of Engineering and former Pro-Vice Chancellor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
It is my belief that:
• Climate change is a characteristic feature of the dynamic system of the Earth, Sun, and Cosmos.
• Air pollution and global warming are scientifically separate issues.
• Emissions of carbon dioxide are not a cause of global climate change.
• Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for all life.
• The solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans decreases with an increase in sea temperature, and increases with cooling.
• The oceans breathe carbon dioxide in and out with the seasons, and with major climate changes such as El Niño and
La Niña events.
• The vast surface area of the oceans determines the interchange of gases between the atmosphere and the oceans.
• There is no need for carbon trading, or geosequestration.
• Carbon trading is the result of fear mongering about global warming by the IPCC and others.
• Carbon trading has not arisen from market forces, and presents enormous risks to investors.
• When it is recognized that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, carbon trading will collapse.
• The vast areas of black pavements and dark buildings in large cities cause local heating, called an urban heat island effect.
• The deadly pollution of dust, acid gases, and water vapor entering the atmosphere in many world cities adds to the
heat island effect.
• Such cities can be most unhealthy places. The problems are local, not global, and correction to this man-made pollution
must be industry- and city-centered.
The Sun Drives Our Climate
The major driving forces causing climatic variations on Earth are the variations in the full spectrum of radiation of the
Sun, the variations in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, the varying gravitational influence of the larger planets on the
Sun, and the influence of cosmic radiation on both the Sun and the Earth.
A study of sediment cores collected from the deep ocean supports a new explanation for how glacier melting at the end of the ice ages led to the release of carbon dioxide from the ocean.
The study published in Nature suggests that melting glaciers in the northern hemisphere caused a disruption of deep ocean currents , leading to the release of trapped carbon dioxide from the Southern Ocean around Antarctica.
Understanding what happened when previous glaciers melted could help climate researchers make accurate predictions about future global temperature increases and their effects on the planet.
The evidence is strong that ice ages are driven by periodic changes in the amount of sunlight reaching the poles due to cyclic changes in Earth's rotation and orbit. Yet scientists have been puzzled by evidence that although the timing of ice ages are best explained by changes in sunlight in the northern part of the globe, the warming at the end of ice ages occurred first in the southern hemisphere , with a rise in carbon dioxide levels appearing to be cued from the south.
The new study suggests that changes in ocean currents, connecting the north to the south through the deep ocean, were to blame.
Part of this story was suggested more than a decade ago and is already accepted by many climate scientists : As glaciers in the north started melting, the influx of fresh water diluted the salty waters that today flow to the north from the tropics as an extension of the Gulf Stream . Normally, these salty waters become cool and sink into the deep ocean, forming cold and dense water that flows southward, and allowing more salty tropical water to take its place in a sort of ocean conveyor belt. But the influx of fresh water due to melting glaciers stalled the conveyor belt.
The new research suggests that the shutdown in northern sinking water allowed southern-sourced water to fill up the deep Atlantic, setting up a new ocean circulation pattern. This new circulation pattern brought deep-sea water, which was rich in carbon dioxide due to sunken dead marine algae, to the surface near Antarctica, where the gas escaped into the atmosphere and acted to drive global warming. (See diagram.)
The researchers included investigators from ETH Zürich, Princeton University, the University of Miami, the University of British Columbia, and the University of Bremen and the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany. The Princeton effort was led by Daniel Sigman, the Dusenbury Professor of Geological and Geophysical Sciences.
The team tracked these historic movements of water through the study of sediment cores that are rich in silicon dioxide, or opal. Tiny marine algae known as diatoms make their cell walls out of opal, and when the organisms die, their opal remains sink to the deep sea bed.
The researchers looked at opal in sediment core samples drilled from deep beneath the ocean floor off the coast of northwest Africa and Antarctica. The team found that each period of glacier melting, which occurred five times over the last 550 thousand years, corresponded to a spike in the amount of the opal in the sediment, signaling an increase in diatom growth. The timing of the opal spikes provides evidence that the deep, opal-rich waters in the south were drawn to the surface in response to new meltwater entering the northern ocean.
The mechanism clashes with a previously offered explanation of why the melting of the northern glaciers, or deglaciations, leads to the release of ocean carbon dioxide from the Southern Ocean – the theory that the melting glaciers in the north increased southern hemisphere westerly winds, which in turn caused upwelling of Southern Ocean deep waters. "While distinguishing between these alternatives is important," says Sigman, "the greater challenge is to test and understand a premise that is shared by both of these scenarios: that ice age conditions around Antarctica caused the deep ocean to be sluggish and rich in carbon dioxide. If this was really how the ice age ocean operated, then it calls for us to reconsider how we expect deep ocean circulation to respond to modern global warming."
More information: Meckler, A. et al. 2013. Deglacial pulses of deep-ocean silicate into the subtropical North Atlantic Ocean. Nature 495 (7442), 495–498. doi:10.1038/nature12006 . Published online 27 March, 2013.
Climate science is extremely complex; although governed by the rules of modern physics, the models (which address the problem from many different dimensions) are trying to simulate our natural environment yet we do not have the data accuracy nor the computational power to accomplish such a feat. The models are thus rough indicators of trend. These models continue to improve as scientists incorporate feedback by comparing the predictions of the model to empirical observations - especially temperature measurements.
The main anthropogenic factor comes from CO2, CH4, N2O with CO2 as the heavy hitter. Through atmospheric measurements we can tell how much of the atmospheric CO2 , for example, came from our historical increased release of C into the atmosphere over the past 100 years from human sources.
I question how you categorically dismiss the ongoing findings of climate science and declare that AGW should be ignored.
Given I answered your question on climate science models and you are still complaining (rather than formulating a rebuttal) you are clearly not serious and I am done giving you the benefit of the doubt.
So why should we "Trust" it's " THEORETICAL Conclusions ?
Just because …… it "COULD-BE" ?
I suspect you do not understand what a model-based simulation involves. As an analogy, consider weather forecasting. That is based on models which implement physics as we know it today and seeks to predict weather patterns based upon the data we can accumulate. Clearly we cannot gather all the data that determines weather patterns, so the models are inherently inaccurate. However, over time meteorologists have used feedback to mitigate errors (lessen errors) and have improved data collection and built better models exploiting the increasingly better technical resources (communication, processing and storage).
Today, weather forecasting is still inaccurate but it is dramatically better than even 10 years ago and does indeed work. Apply this concept now to climate change. Climate change is substantially more complex than weather but the same principles apply. The question thus is how accurate are the models? Climate model accuracy is determined by comparing predictions to observations. Given the nature of the problem, this largely means looking at history. Plugging in historical data into the models to see how accurately they predict empirically observed behavior.
On the question of how much you trust the results. Well, I think you need to do some reading on the subject and see if the results thus far are persuasive. My position is that the results thus far show we have a problem that cannot be simply dismissed as 'theoretical nonsense'.
You shouldn't "Suspect" anything. "Conjecture" is such an ugly word thing that can come back and bite one in the butt. We've already witnessed that issue, in the last few months.
As you have a said few times in your own comments ……. "still inaccurate" …… "The models are thus rough indicators" …..
Sound familiar ?
"Well, I think you need to do some reading on the subject and see if the results thus far are persuasive."
Thanks for the advise, but reading is already my thing. So many studies, so many different views.
But ……
As we both know ….. it's still an inaccurate rough science !