Two climate developments this week could prove to be significant. First, USEPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler implied that there might be a larger review of climate science. Second, Sanjeev Sabhlok published an opinion piece in the Times of India arguing that climate science was not really a science as yet and should not be used to make policy decisions based on it. If EPA or others were to undertake such a broad review of climate science, Sanjeev Sabhlok’s comments could be the basis for one of the conclusions that might reasonably be reached.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler used an overseas gathering of environment ministers this week to hint that the United States might overhaul the way it uses climate data and modeling. His assertion was included in an official document from the Group of Seven meeting in Metz, France. It remains unclear if Wheeler revealed a potential policy to reexamine climate modeling.
The wording of Wheeler’s comments was contained in the US portion of the meeting comunique: “The United States reaffirms its commitment to re-examine comprehensive modeling that best reflects the actual state of climate science in order to inform its policy-making decisions, including comparing actual monitored climate data against the modeled climate trajectories on an on-going basis.”
Sanjeev Sabhlok’s comments concerning the current status of climate change are very well taken. He argues that Climate science is too primitive to be of any use in making policy. Let it first get its predictions right and become a genuine science, he said. This reflects the views expressed by physicist Richard Feynman’s concerning the basis for valid science.
The US statement at an international meeting is indeed encouraging. Models are mathematical expressions of real world conditions. They serve to try to simplify a complicated subject to its most important elements.
Because the climate across the planet is a complicated topic, every model of global climate will be at least somewhat wrong.
Whether a model is useful depends on how effectively it forecasts the future and explains the past. The models used by the UN are not effective. This is widely recognized, even if unreported by left wing media.
it would make sense for the US to focus on comparing the evidence of measured temperatures with modeled forecasts and report on model efficacy.
This will serve to educate Americans that UNEP models are not effective. It’s good to report this to a UN forum so as to educate other nations and put them under some pressure to justify an incredibly expensive program that uses failed forecasts. The UN is sticking with fantasy models despite their evident failure. The UN prefers fantasy to real world data.
As Doctor Carlin has stated, the scientific method involves testing hypotheses versus real world evidence. If the hypothesis fails, it must be rejected.
It is appropriate for the US to report its temperature data does not agree well with UN models and to indicate that US government policy cannot be guided by ineffective forecasts. Great thinkng by Administrator Wheeler.
[…] http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/4982 […]