A climate change denier? Who me?

A climate change denier? Who me?

I have said many times that I am not a climate denier because it is obviously that the climate always changes. However, I am not in the camp that believes that climate change constitutes an existential threat. Such a claim is at best difficult to prove. First, the planet is not fragile and has the remarkable ability to heal itself. It has been said that the climate change zealots have adopted climate change as a religion. It is curious that they seemingly have rejected the planet’s innate healing ability. Second, I am not in the camp that contends that whatever change is occurring is man made. Third, I am not convinced that even if it is man made that the change will destroy the environment.

Part of my skepticism stems from the current state of climate modeling. There is a large literature authored by eminent scientists which concludes that climate change is not the existential threat that so many believe. That literature is among those labeled as “misinformation” and has been systematically suppressed. Yet it exists. Given that scientific research is as much an art as it is a science, it is healthy for it to be examined in minute detail for these findings carry much import. 

I have constructed econometric models my entire professional life. I used to give my doctoral students a set of papers confirming one hypothesis. Then I would give them a set of papers disconfirming the hypothesis. I would then ask them to critique both sets and defend which if any they believed was correct. One example was a paper I published that confirmed two competing hypotheses using the same data set. Rarely will papers use the same model, the same statistical technique, the same time frame and the same data set. That calls into question whether it is the appropriate model, the appropriate technique, the appropriate data and the appropriate time frame. Another example was as an expert witness I would critique the other side’s results. In one highly publicized case, I found that the model used by the other side employed a statistical technique that always yielded false positives. In another case, I found that I could increase the statistical probability by including variables that had no relevance to the case like the sale of firecrackers in the Hunan province of China. A third example was that the model constructed made no logical sense forcing the other side to contend that it didn’t matter if it made sense so long as it generated a high statistical probability.

Much the same can be said about climate models. Questions arise as to whether they predict backward better than forward. Researchers have found different conclusions given what time period they study. Much has been said that forecasters have a high likelihood of inaccurate forecasts two weeks out much less fifty years or more out. Consider that in a survey of 36 climate change models it was found that the models over estimated the change in the earth’s climate by 43 percent. https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global-warming-observations-vs-climate-models.  Another paper concludes “Our work shows that the increase in climate sensitivity from the last generation of

climate models should be taken with a huge grain of salt.” Yet another paper states “And now we have way too much confidence in some very dubious climate models and inadequate data sets. And we’re not really framing the problem broadly enough to … make credible projections about the range of things that we could possibly see in the 21st century.”

I am certainly no expert on atmospheric physics but I do know that climate models tend to be overly complicated with multiple equations on the physical and chemical processes attempting to mimic the climate system. Yet the models are still crude and rudimentary. One scientist has said “We do not know much about modeling climate. It is as though we are modeling a human being. Models are in position at last to tell us the creature has two arms and two legs, but we are being asked to cure cancer. There is a good reason for a lack of consensus on the science. It is simply too early. The problem is difficult, and there are pitifully few ways to test climate models.”

Note that even though some climate grifters like Al Gore claim that there is a consensus, any empiricist knows that there is no consensus in science. For example, I have always wondered about the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperatures. It would seem simple enough to see if carbon changed by a certain amount then how much did temperature change. We model relationships like this all the time in economics. What about in climate models? It turns out that the climate models do not reach anything close to a consensus. All models are plagued by measurement error. Models predict with a confidence interval whose ranges may predict temperature changes that go from benign to terrifying. Empirically there have been periods of rising carbon dioxide and rising temperatures and periods of rising carbon dioxide and falling global temperatures. If we happen to be in the former and not the latter then the climate alarmists can warn us of impending doom. However, one research measuring the earth’s temperature by drilling into its core, shows that the current period is actually a historically cool one rather than one with high global temperatures. There are studies that point to the sun, its axial tilt and cloud cover as being more determinant than carbon dioxide.

Yet politicians have gleefully embraced the climate is the existential threat theme. It increases their power. Not surprisingly most of the zealots are on the left, endorsing more government control over our behavior. Banning internal combustion engines, washing machines, dryers, weed eaters, lawn mowers, natural gas, fossil fuels and all the rest allow them to play God. There are two questions. First, do this policies actually reduce emissions? Second, even if they did reduce emissions how does the reduction affect the climate. A study of over 1,500 climate policies in 41 countries showed that only 63 actually reduced greenhouse gas emissions. An interesting fact is that despite countries participating in the Paris Accord, that fossil fuel use is increasing and that those countries climate emissions will exceed the Paris target by over 23 billion metric tons by 2030. Didn’t the erudite AOC say in 2019 that if we did not address climate change that the world would end in 12 years? Methinks, she could be a wee bit off (in more ways than one). 

Isn’t the earth repairing itself and will ward off any adverse effects of climate change? Who knows? Is the climate change itself is a natural occurrence? Who knows? Is the climate change manmade and can be reversed though draconian government edicts? Anyone who claims to know the truth is doing so on faith rather than on fact. That is why the climate change zealots are said to have adopted climate change as a religion. That is a religion based on faith, a particular belief in what set of results and observations are factual, and a belief in a causal positive relationship between emissions and global temperatures.

Do misunderstand me. I am glad that smokers are no longer allowed to smoke in airplanes and most indoor spaces. I am glad that we no longer see smoke belching from diesel engines. I am glad the air and water are cleaner. I am glad that we are no longer dumping our waste in minority areas. But why ban coal fired plants if today’s technology means“clean coal?” The environment is the cleanest it has been in industrial history and it is getting cleaner. I want that to continue. However, most measures undertaken today do not make a measurable difference and should be rescinded. Solar and wind energy needs to be reevaluated. Nuclear needs to be expanded. All this should be done in the name of a cleaner environment and not one due to trying to frighten little children that the earth will die if we don’t ban pizza ovens.