Let’s have a dialogue about unreliable climate change models

darkcloudsThe following post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations.

One of the things we try to do at Sutherland Institute is encourage an honest dialogue. Opinions are often a part of that dialogue, but as Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, while we can each have our own opinions, we can’t have our own set of facts. Watching the latest news from the global warming debate reminds me of that as we continue to see people passing opinion off as fact and ignoring facts when they’re inconvenient to their opinions.

Those facts don’t seem to be going the global warmist way right now. Here are a few examples: The Arctic ice cap, which was predicted as late as 2007 to be melted by now, already increased in size by 60 percent this year – and that’s before the winter freeze sets in. Also, as the summer comes to a close, the U.S. has experienced the fewest 100-plus degree days in a century. And to cap it off, even the most ardent global warming alarmists now have to admit that, despite the unanimously dire predictions of their models, the earth’s temperatures have not risen a lick in the past 16 years. Which brings up the real question: Why does anyone still believe those models?

Look, I’m not a climate scientist so I’m not going to declare that I know with 100 percent certainty that anthropogenic global warming theories are merely a way for those with a central planning bent to get their hooks into our wallets and their ideas into our policy decisions. But I can tell you that their predictions are not coming true, and so their arguments, and the science upon which those arguments are made, merit questioning in an honest dialogue. Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Global warming alarmists are playing a different riff on that tune by doing the same thing over and over and ignoring the results.

One way we could turn down the temperature, so to speak, and go from rhetoric to dialogue is to talk about how the models are working rather than just deflecting continual attempts to explain away their obvious failures by those who insist on making the data fit their explanations. Those people aren’t going to change their minds. They have too much invested in the business of global warming to be influenced by inconvenient truths at this point.

But there are honest people who really wonder, who are concerned, and who would like honest answers. So the real question we need to address with them is why the doom-and-gloom models in which we’ve invested billions of dollars – probably trillions globally – in renewable energy, carbon taxes, and other anti-warming schemes have simply been wrong.

Models should do two things. They predict and they explain. The global warming industry took models that fit past data and interpreted them to explain that data. They then went one step further and used those models to predict future data. Well, the data don’t fit. That means that while the models fit past data, they didn’t really explain it. They left stuff out or included stuff that shouldn’t have been included or whatever. Ask a statistician. But the point is, they don’t explain the present and therefore can’t be relied upon to explain the future. Let’s have an honest dialogue about that.

For Sutherland Institute, I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.

Receive the Mero Moment each week directly to your iTunes by clicking here.