Continuing on from my previous post, there were two items that showed up in mid-December that continue the critics’ drumbeat against the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

First, there’s the problem of faulty climate models. A study published in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology analyzed the validity of commonly used climate models. The authors took the seemingly obvious approach of asking how the models performed over a short period when they can be compared to actual measurements. The answer was, not very well at all.

ScienceDaily has a good summary here, but early in the summary, one of the study’s authors tells the story:

“The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth’s climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,” said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. “Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? “It seems that the answer is no.”

The basic problem is that the climate models say that the lower and middle atmosphere should be warming much faster than the surface. Actual measurements show that, in fact, these parts of the atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. This begs the question about why we should trust predictions of dramatic climate change over the next several decades when those very models didn’t predict changes we are having now? This is somewhat like choosing to bet the house on lottery numbers picked by a psychic who could not correctly deduce your hair color.

Even better, the story points out that an earlier study simply explained away this discrepancies by claiming they were errors in the data. Does anyone else see a problem with saying that the theories are right and the data is wrong? I thought the scientific method dictated that theories adapted to the data, not the other way around. Just another example of how this is no longer about science, but about politics.

Next, there’s a clearly stated, well-written open letter to the UN by a slew of scientists making the argument that trying to “fix” the climate is a fool’s errand and the right course of action is to plan to adapt.

They summarize:

The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

Read the entire letter to see a simple takedown of the “consensus” myth, especially as it relates to the UN’s IPCC reports.

As has been said elsewhere, I believe this monolith of anthropogenic global warming believers is being shown to be a house of cards. As the next few years pass and the trends show a plateau or even a cooling period, these doomsayers will look more and more like the guy with the scraggly beard and the sandwich board reading “The End is Nigh”.

And now, a roundup of some news items regarding climate change that I’ve been meaning to mention. Let’s start with an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month that is willing to point out that Emperor Al Gore has no clothes. Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. writes about the problem of an “availability cascade”:

How this honor [the Nobel Peace Prize] has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on “availability bias,” roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.

Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: “Availability cascade” has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; “informational cascade” for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd’s beliefs; and “reputational cascade” for the rational incentive to do so.

Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he’s playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: “The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”

Here’s exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged “consensus” arrived at their positions by counting heads?

In formal logic, this is known as circular reasoning. In casual logic, it’s known as pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps. Whether you have to obey the laws of physics or the laws of logic, you cannot assume the conclusion to prove your point. By claiming a consensus long enough and loud enough, Gore is attempting to do just that.

Mr. Jenkins concludes by making another observation that seems obvious, but is not said enough:

Public opinion cascades are powerful but also fragile–liable to be overturned in an instant when new information comes along. The current age of global warming politics will certainly end with a whimper once a few consecutive years of cooling are recorded. Why should we expect such cooling? Because the forces that caused warming and cooling in the past, before the advent of industrial civilization, are still at work.

No, this wouldn’t prove or disprove a human role in warming, only that climate is variable and subject to complicated influences. But it would also eliminate the large incentive for politicians to traffic in doom-laden predictions–because such predictions would no longer command media assent and would cease to function as levers to redistribute resources.

Mr. Gore would have to find a new job.

Remember, it’s not about saving the planet. It’s about controlling society.

I keep meaning to add an entry soon. I have some opinion items I wanted to share and it’s a good time to write since I’m home on vacation.

However, we’ve all just finished getting over some lingering colds, so we’re just sort of enjoying being lazy and comfortable without coughing and Kleenex. We’re doing well. The shopping is done. We’re ready to sleep in for the next few days and just enjoy spending time together.

So, mostly I just want to wish you all a Merry Christmas. I hope you are somewhere as fun and relaxing as we are to celebrate our Savior’s birth!

So, I have to give big kudos to David for making this event happen. During this past summer, he heard about two of his favorite bands going on tour together. Switchfoot and Relient K are rock bands known for their uplifting music with Christian overtones.

When I discovered that we could get a discount on tickets if we bought in a group of 10, David was on a mission. He signed up seven other friends (Stef, David, and I made the first three) and asked me to buy the tickets. Once I did, he passed out tickets and collected the money. So, not only did he get to go, but he helped a bunch of friends get organized as well.

We ended up taking David and three of his friends in our own van, but there were twenty or thirty kids from his youth group when we arrived. As you can see from the pictures I’ve posted here, we had a blast!

Oh and a big thank you to Micah Holmes and Abbie Kirkpatrick for taking some of the photos I’ve posted.