Climate change has been the great doom-and-gloom scenario of my life. Sure, the hole in the ozone layer was scary, but we were going to be wiped out by climate change long before we got cancer from the lack of ozone.
And, to be honest, I believed it all.
Then again, this was pre-internet, so it was much more difficult to find contrary information to what the media was dishing out.
And that’s without going into Al Gore’s craptacular piece of propaganda.
But for years, we’ve had a lot of rhetoric about how everything horrible is going to happen, only for climate models to universally fail to pan out remotely as climate scientists claim.
Now, Nature is taking scientists to task for the doom-and-gloom.
Too many climate researchers are making unrealistically dire projections about the future consequences of man-made climate change based on computer models that run way too hot, argues a new commentary in Nature.
The commentary's authors point out that the too-hot models reported in the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) failed to reproduce historical climate trends, thus casting considerable doubt on their more catastrophic temperature increase projections. Consequently, the researchers note that the former practice of "simply taking an average" of all of the models together leads to higher projections of warming than is warranted.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) took this into account when evaluating model results and lowered projected temperatures by between 0.2 and 0.7 degrees Celsius for each greenhouse gas emissions scenarios used in its AR6 analyses. "Findings that show projected climate change will be 'worse than we thought' are often attributable to the hot models in CMIP6," observe the authors of the commentary. The authors urge other researchers to avoid the mistake of simply averaging climate model outputs as they seek to identify how climate change will affect future global and regional temperatures, precipitation, sea level, ecologies, and ocean heat content.
Go and read the whole thing. You can thank me later.
The truth of the matter is that I don’t have an issue with the idea that the climate is changing. I know what it was like here when I was a kid and what it is now. We used to have, you know, winter. Not so much now.
So yeah, tell me the climate is changing? Sure, I can accept that as possible.
The problem is that all this doom-and-gloom is being pushed not because we need to be aware of something happening but because it can be used to push countless bits of leftist policy.
So we get the absolute worst pronouncements in an effort to push people to act.
The problem is, with absolutely none of the models panning out over the years, it’s impossible for me to take them seriously. Especially since they’re claiming that this is the result of human activity.
If they can’t get their models right, I can’t help but figure they don’t really understand what they’re talking about.
What the Nature commentary is trying to do is, apparently, tell them to knock it off because they’re finally starting to realize you can only say the sky is falling so many times before people think you’re really just crying wolf.
Unfortunately, I think that without the scare train chugging down the line, climate science will end up being classified as just a step more valid the phrenology.