Perhaps It’s To Be Expected

     Persons who develop high expertise in a specialty purely hate to see that specialty abused. That’s certainly the case with me. During my wage-earning years (I refuse to call them my “working years;” I work more and harder today than I ever did when I was getting paid for it), I became an expert in simulation: its requirements, its limitations, and what it can and cannot do. It frosts my buns when I hear the apostles of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cite a simulation as “proof” of their insane thesis.

     They do it for a couple of reasons. First, they have no evidentiary support for their thesis. Second, they know that the general public doesn’t know much about computers or simulations, and so can be deceived with a degree of safety. When you’re desperate to flog a wholly unsubstantiated notion to the general public, you must take care to make your lies difficult to reveal.

     But a simulation remains incapable of proving anything. All it can do is predict how a system will behave if and only if the assumptions and mechanisms built into the simulation are correct. If even one of those assumptions or mechanisms is incorrect, the simulation and its predictions will be worthless.

     Most of what I write here at Liberty’s Torch is pure opinion. The statements above are statements of hard fact. You can take ‘em to the bank.

     But the CAGW / “climate change” flacksters are determined to put their lies over on the American people. There’s a lot of money and power in the offing if they can pull it off. So they’ll continue to press their completely fallacious case. They’ll also continue to call anyone who disputes their claims “everything but white.”

     Which brings us to this article at The New American:

     A new report, released this month by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), states that empirical evidence shows that, despite the dire predictions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is “no evidence of a climate crisis.” Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Oslo laid out his case in his annual State of the Climate Report.

     Humlum is a professor emeritus of physical geology and hydrology, with a specific interest in geomorphology and climate variability. He believes that much of the “climate change” that we see is the result of poorly understood but very natural cycles.

     This is yet another confirmation of what we already know from thirty years of meteorological observations. But the warmistas and the politicians who stand to profit from their lies remain determined that Professor Humlum and others who concentrate their attention on the data shall not be permitted to speak and be heard:

     Much more predictably than the climate itself, climate alarmist heads exploded at the thought that anyone might actually believe that so-called climate change might be a natural consequence of natural Earth and solar cycles.

     When Steve Baker, a Tory MP in the United Kingdom, shared [Humlum’s] report as part of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group in parliament, NGOs in the U.K. attacked him for spreading “climate denialism.”

     “The mask has slipped. Promoting climate denial from GWPF is not scrutiny of policies but denying the basis for action. Dangerous and wrong,” said Joe Tetlow, a senior political adviser for the Green Alliance, a climate-alarmist think tank based in London.

     It should come as no surprise that the media have promoted the CAGW / “climate change” hypothesis completely uncritically. It wasn’t about “science;” it was about increasing their audiences. As I wrote many years ago:

     When the Main Stream Media’s drums began to pound out the CAGW march, we should have been especially skeptical, in the best sense of that word: unwilling to commit in the absence of extensive evidence and successful predictions confirmed by multiple disinterested reviewers. Journalists love a “crisis,” and the CAGW hypothesis provided them with one they could hardly resist. But journalism is not science, not even at its very best. It’s merely a service of variable quality, vended to an audience in the hope of making money. Its claims must always be assessed in that light, especially when it aligns itself with persons and institutions screaming for totalitarian power over every kind and degree of human action.

     I could say much more on this subject, but I’ll spare you. Let the following cartoon suffice to summarize my main contention:

     Once again, applause to Mike Miles. Now I’m off to (groan) labor over my lawn. But do have a nice day.