CLIMATE CHANGE -- Questioning The Mantra

                          
                   More On Ignoring The "Scientific Method"
                                            By Michael J. Brown
Michael Brown is a retired Army Officr who holds an MBA from The College of William and Mary. He published the piece below in The Virginia Gazette as a follow-up to Steve Kauffman's op-ed published in the same paper and posted on this blog on February 7. As with Mr. Kauffman's published piece, I had nothing to do with their decision to write and publish, but found both to be so objective and accurate as to be compelling to post on this blog. I am honored to know both individuals as thinking people who seek truth and avoid the herd-think that dominates the "climate change" issue today. 
Accurate scientific results and conclusions are not arrived at by "consensus" of a group of scientists. Rather, correct scientific results are derived from use of "The Scientific Method" that assures opinion, bias and dishonesty are excluded from the final results and decisions. Today's climate change doctrine (mantra) is antithetical to this principle with politics being a major component of the claimed condition. Computer modeling, the substitute for "the method" and testing, does not exclude these unscientific inputs. In fact, it can be argued quite legitimately that they dominate the claims today.

Michael Brown's letter:

Steven Kauffman’s thoughtful essay, “Questioning Climate Change,” in the Wednesday Virginia Gazette discusses climate scientists applying climate research data to computer modeling.  It is significant that advocates of man-caused climate change are unable to use the proven “scientific method” traditionally required of serious scientists for their conclusions and consensus.


Computer modeling is a useful tool for all kinds of hypothesizing.  Fundamentally, the validity of a computer model (however well its algorithms are constructed) declines with increasing imprecision when the computer model’s variable sets (the dependent and independent components of the computer model) are limited, incomplete, and/or not fully understood in their causes and effects to Earth’s complex climate system.


The more incomplete a climate model’s real world components, the more skewed the model’s output in terms of reliability.  The more limited and general the components contained in the model, the less scientifically useful the model’s results.  Thus, it is the height of hubris to declare climate modeling results with respect to man-caused climate change to be a scientific certainty.


Earth’s climate is eternally in a state of change – change which is certainly not fully understood even today.  Climate scientists are forced to use only the slimmest lists of potentially significant climate variables for their models because that is all the data they have.  Such thin gruel is insufficient basis for the economically damaging prescriptions currently being advocated by some in today’s political arena.


A changing Earth’s climate has always been with us and always will.  The degree of human effect on our climate is considerably less certain.


Michael J. Brown

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

I apologize for the structure of the post below, with no segmentation, but the system refuses to do it my way. To my post yesterday re AMR's chapter 11 filing relating my experiences over many years flying with AA, an AA pilot wrote a thoughtful comment that caused me to think a bit more about the precursors to conditions of their bankruptcy. Frankly, I have what is perhaps too much experience with trade unions and their excesses, but know less about others such as the airlines. After learning more about the negotiations of AA with their unions, I now think it's justifiable to post the comments below. I've seen too many industries destroyed by union excesses coupled with management incompetence in caving to excess demands. Start with coal (dead for many years), steel, textiles, shoes, electronics manufacturing, and more.  The Detroit 3 (once the big 3) deserves special mention. As their costs rose to $72/hour (fully loaded) and costs in the southern industry w
Read more

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

"Trying to persuade a prejudiced mind is as Sisyphean as trying to open a closed mind is Quixotic." Mann, May 2012 In a blog post herein below on May 1, 2013, I outlined what we who manage people and enterprises know as absolutes about performances of people who are put into management and supervisory positions for which they haven't requisite qualifications. For those who have progressed through several jobs to their level of incompetence, this is known as the Peter Principle as defined by Laurence J. Peter. In all likelihood, all who have managed people for any length of time have seen this principle played out. While Peter's observation applies to progression through multiple job levels, if a person is put into any job for which he is unqualified, the concept is also valid. Elective political positions is where I see this most often played out. The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most significant example of this in my lif
Read more

ETHANOL -- The worst mandate ever gets even worse

When politicians get control of science and the inept or dishonest scientists, nothing good comes of it. There are many examples -- global warming (aka climate change) is the most prominent. The ethanol mandate, although a part of the climate change mania, stands on its own as arguably the most ridiculous mandate of all time. President Jimmy Carter, who was influenced by a misguided college professor, can be charged with the mistake of promulgating the ethanol mandate.  Of course, Al Gore is the politician who played the global warming issue like a drum and has benefited financially from it. Use of ethanol in motor fuel is not a net positive either in costs or in impact on the environment.... enormous hype to the contrary notwithstanding. Ethanol does not have the positive effect on the environment as touted. It has only about 60% of the specific energy of petroleum fuel, which begs use of more fuel to achieve the same energy as petroleum fuel. And, so it does. I have my own experie
Read more