American Thinker | James Lewis | Sept. 7, 2008
Yes, kids, science is a wonderful thing. But not nearly as wonderful as climate modeling, which can perform supernatural miracles. Honest! Climate modeling can raise the level of the oceans (even without Obama’s intervention), it can burn up the planet a hundred years from now, and Shazzam! — the models can save us again — all without leaving your video games, and without the benefit of the real-world data that you need for boring old regular science.
At least, that’s what Nature — the oldest science journal in the world, going back to Isaac Newton — now claims.
According to credulous journalist extraordinaire Katharine Sanderson (who has no degree in climatology), we are supposed to believe that “sophisticated climate chemistry models have shown that the (Montreal) Protocol has done much more than rescue the planet from sunburn.”
For all you great unwashed, the Montreal Protocol prohibited CFC’s, which used to keep our refrigerators cold. Now we find out that not only has Montreal saved the world’s ozone layer, but it has even postponed the dreaded catastrophe of Global Warming!
How do we know that? What’s the actual evidence?
Well, ummmm… well… duuuhhh
Oh yes, it’s a “sophisticated climate chemistry model”!
Phew.
[…]
In no other field of science can you create a garbage-in/garbage-out video game about one of the most complex nonlinear systems known to science, the earth climate, and make wild guesses and get paid for it — not to mention being celebrated in the pages of Nature. You just take a data point from fifty years ago, add another point from the 1990s, project it all to 2030, make inferences from chlorine to ozone to global warming, publish the result, and get celebrated for your non-existent proof of current pop orthodoxy about Armageddon.
. . . more
