“I’m not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I’ll say, ‘OK.’ It’s not that hard,” said Obama, who drew loud applause at the League of Conservation Voters’ annual Capital Dinner.
Well, I don’t suppose that he is a meteorologist either. But if a bunch of meteorologists tell him that it is going to rain on Wed next week in Washington will he say ’OK. It’s not that hard.’ Would he stake his life on that one?
Isn’t that a fairer comparison to climate science than doctors, tobacco and lung cancer?
Meteorologists are experts in their field too. But their field deals with a far more chaotic system than the biochemistry of the human body.
This was recognized by the IPCC back in 2001:
” … In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
From the 3rd IPCC report, Section 14.2 “The Climate System”, page 774.
Now how did that statement get into the ‘settled science’?
Since that was written the Global Climate Models have lent support to the IPCC assessment as they have failed to track Mother Nature and the GCMs forecast a warmer world than the one we currently inhabit.
While Obama’s confidence in his doctor friends may be justified it is unlikely that the same level of certainty should be accorded his bunch of meteorologists. It is an easy win when you don’t compare apples to apples. People with an agenda are prone to such oversight.
No comments:
Post a Comment