Clouds, Trees, Oceans, and Lies.

Climate scientists know how one of these things works. Guess which one?

Back in June I wrote about how climate “science” was a little weak on the science part and a little to strong on the propaganda part. It’s a good article, if I do say so myself, and you might want to go back and read it (or read it again) as a foundation for today’s post.

One of my main points was (and is) that model’s aren’t science. Not really. Science is driven by theory and observation and data. Models are driven by assumptions. The assumptions steer the conclusions. Always.

And these “scientists” are just guessing about the assumptions. They don’t know how the planet’s highly complex climate system “works”.

So, they just guess. And adjust. And guess. And adjust. And guess. That’s why they use so many different climate models. They have no clue which one is going to “work”, if any.

So they tinker — like this. This tinkering isn’t deepening our understanding of the complex systems that drive temperatures and climate on the Earth.

Which is why none of these models have ever “worked”. They don’t predict the real world in the slightest. They all massively overestimate future warming. These estimates cause massive alarmism. One might guess that’s their purpose.

That alarmism is used to deceive the public into giving politicians (and their crony benefactors) all manner of power and profits in wasteful boondoggles and regulations that harm us at their expense. We get poorer. They get richer.

And depriving 3rd world countries of the fossil fuels they need to develop is beyond just “bad policy”. That’s evil.

In June I said the models don’t understand the highly complex positive and negative temperature feedback loops caused by clouds. It’s a pretty big variable, but since they don’t understand how clouds work, they just ignore them.

Seriously. The models assume that “…the warming and cooling effects of clouds will balance each other out over time…”

That’s not so “sciency”.

Trees impact the climate quite a bit too. They are another important variable. To understand their effect, you’d think you’d need to know (roughly) how many of them there are on the earth. But they don’t.

Again, they just wing it. They tweak the assumptions up and down and left and right and maybe one day the right answers will start popping out of one of these idiotic models.

I’ll bet the “don’t”, please.

And what about the oceans? The surface of this planet is mostly water, surely our scientists understand how the seas “work” within our climate system, right?

Wrong. This article is instructive. Ignore the headline and the introductory “preachy” paragraphs. Only one thing is certain in this article: Man-made climate change is dogma. But beyond that, they have no idea what’s going on with temperatures in the oceans.

The author rejects an enormous recent volcanic eruption as a possible cause of increased ocean temperatures. Of course. Volcanos are natural, and therefore “innocent”. Makes sense.

Hilariously, one possible culprit is new 2020 international shipping regulations that caused cargo ships to emit less pollution into the air. Airborne pollutants reflect sunlight, you see. But pollution is bad. But hotter oceans is also bad. What’s a pseudo-scientist-politician-regulator-overseer to do?

Not to worry. An “expert on air pollution and climate change at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory” named Stephen Smith is all over it. He says, “It’s a complicated system and its going to take some time to sort that out, but people are trying to do that.

Hardy har har.

The article ends with this possible explanation: “Weirdness”. I’m not kidding. After all this “sciency” talk, one of them says, “My guess is, in the end, it’s just going to be internal variability.”

I find these types of articles simultaneously horrifying and hilarious. These clowns have no clue what’s going on with climate, but they are telling our overlords to base draconian legislation and edicts on their so-called “scientific consensus”.

It’s laughable. It’s also destructive.

Cheap energy is critical to human wealth, health, and happiness. If you’re going to use the force of law to limit our access to cheap energy, you’d better be damned sure you know what you’re talking about.

And these climate scientists don’t. If they say they do, they are lying.

Here’s another critical variable they leave out of their models of the future climate: Human ingenuity.

I don’t blame them. How can one model such a thing? But it’s hugely important. If CO2 really is a problem, it’s human ingenuity that’s going to end up solving it for us. Just enter into your preferred search engine, “carbon capture inventions” and start reading.

If it ever becomes critically important to reduce the amount of carbon in the air, we can do that. Don’t panic.

I’ve thrown a lot of shade at climate scientists — or at least those few who claim to be able to “model” the earth’s climate and make predictions of the future based on them.

But I don’t disparage this kind of scientific work. It’s a great and noble thing to study and try to learn how the earth’s complex climate feedback loops work. It’s obviously a very important thing for humans to improve our knowledge about.

Just quit lying to us, please.

Naturally,

Adam

PS: Oh, and you need to read Alex Epstein’s book, Fossil Future. Seriously. It’s excellent.