I wasn’t always a libertarian with conservative leanings. Once upon a time, I was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
I got better.
Anyway, one of the things I remember from back then was Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. I watched what was really nothing more than a lecture about how we were destroying the planet and, if we weren’t careful, here were all the horror stories about what was going to happen.
I was concerned.
For a long time after my politics started shifting, I held onto that concern. After all, we were destroying the planet, right?
After a time, though, I stopped being concerned. Instead, I became what the media terms a climate denier.
Now, understand, I do think the climate is changing. I know what weather was like in my youth and I know what it’s like now, and there are pronounced differences. In particular, with regard to winter.
We used to have it here in Southwest Georgia.
Now, well, we still do and it’s still cold in the winter. For both weeks of it. (The 14 days aren’t necessarily consecutive, for the record. It’s usually two or three days of cold at a time.)
However, something I noticed is that despite what appears to be clear evidence right before my eyes, the climate models keep getting it wrong. In fact, the track record for those models is rather impressive.
They’re pretty much always wrong.
So how is it that I can see differences in the climate over a handful of decades while the supposed experts can’t seem to model any of it correctly? The answer is simple: They don’t know as much as they like to pretend.
At its heart, science is predictive. It’s about understanding what causes various things so we can predict what will happen when those various things take place. We know that if you drop sodium in water, it explodes. We know that if magma builds too much pressure in a volcano, you get an eruption.
Things like that.
Yet climate change models are universally wrong. They never get it right. Not even within a margin of error. At least, I’ve never been able to find a single one that panned out as predicted.
Either these were intentionally fraudulent—something I can’t rule out but I don’t believe to be the case, especially with regard to the earlier models—or they don’t really understand all the mechanisms that impact climate.
See, when you model something, you have to give it all of the required inputs. Fail to put one in and your results don’t bear much resemblance to reality.
And yet, despite this impressive track record of failure, the left continues to beat the climate change drum as if none of this mattered. They beat it and people accept it because the government and the media are all chiming in about how serious the problem is.
For me, though, I can’t get beyond the failed models.
If climate scientists can’t get the models to actually work, then why should we take their predictions seriously? Remember, they want to create irreparable harm to the economy in an effort to combat this problem that they clearly don’t understand well enough to model effectively.
So yeah, I’m not as concerned as I once was.
Frankly, neither should you. If the climate changes, we’ll deal with it. Humans have the technology to handle it all just fine. If it doesn’t, at least not beyond what it already has, then who cares?
But I guess “don’t worry” doesn’t get people interviews with CNN, now does it?