There’s something rather notable about Climate Scientists, at least, of the attention-seeking, alarmist variety. Namely, that they much prefer the world of computer models to the real world outside their labs. Models that they often don’t seem to fully understand: the investigation in the wake of the Climategate scandal remarked that for work that was so heavily reliant on statistics, none of the scientists involved were trained in statistics.
Perhaps as a consequence, they have grotesquely misplaced confidence in their models. In a rare show of candour, Japanese climate modeller Mototaka Nakamura warned that climate models, while of theoretical interest, were ‘Mickey Mouse’ and ‘worse than useless’ at making accurate predictions about the real world.
On the other hand, scientists like geologists and meteorologists are very much in the real world. Geologists, far from suffering from ‘presentism’ and thralldom to computer models, are used to dealing with the climate as it actually existed in the real world, across vast spans of time. Meteorologists might use modelling, but they can see whether their model projections hold up in real time, rather than making airy predictions that won’t be falsified until long after they’re comfortably retired.
As a consequence, both geologists and meteorologists tend to be highly sceptical of climate alarmism.
Meteorology student Chris Martz recently posed a series of questions for ‘climate doomers’.
To the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius, what is the ‘correct’ global mean surface temperature (GMST)?
This rolls into the second question:
What does a ‘perfect’ climate look like? If so, when did we have one and what was it like? Usually, activists will say ‘pre-industrial.’ But, why?
This is not just pointless snark. If, as the Climate Cult repeatedly shriek, a future warm climate is an existential threat, then it logically follows that some other climate must be the best possible climate. But for whom? For humans? For other animals? For plants? For some obscure species of marine flatworm supposedly ‘threatened’ by climate change?
And why is that? If, as the geologic and historic record shows, previous warm (much warmer) periods were times of abundance, for humans and other species, then why is a future warm climate such a threat? In fact, why are we ignoring that the climate of the previous few centuries was not just colder, but apparently much worse to live through.
Why do you think temperature departures from the 1850 climatic baseline mean is the sole metric which determines human welfare? Why would the climate of the Little Ice Age be preferable than today's climate? What was better about the climate in 1850 than that of 2024? Is today’s climate too dangerous? If so, why? Provide data and evidence to support your reasoning.
Ah, say the alarmists: more extreme weather events! That leads to the next question:
What is the ‘correct’ amount of bad weather? How many tropical cyclones, tornadoes, thunderstorms, hailstorms, droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold waves and wildfires should there be per year globally? Please provide exact numbers and then explain why.
In fact, we know that cold weather extreme events are much deadlier to humans than warm weather extreme events. Basically, humans die in both cold and heat waves – but many more die in cold waves than heat. Why are we ignoring this?
The great bugaboo of the Climate Cult, of course, is atmospheric carbon dioxide. We’re told that human-emitted CO₂ is the root of all climate evil – despite human-emitted CO₂ making up 0.0142 per cent of the Earth’s atmosphere. Yet, here, problems abound, too.
Firstly, throughout the entirety of the Earth’s history, global warming preceded CO₂ rises, raising questions about why the causal relationship has suddenly reversed in just the last century. Moreover, the record also shows that current CO₂ levels are remarkably low by the standard of deep time. So…
What is the ‘correct’ atmospheric carbon dioxide level? What dry-air volume or a range of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would be optimal for plant growth? Show me data and explain why.
Nonetheless, the alarmists have terrified global governments and businesses into pulling out all stops to cut CO₂ levels, at tremendous expense.
Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on so-called ‘climate action’ over the past 35-years. When will that give us that perfect climate, and when it does how will we know? What measure?
If the US spends hundreds of trillions of dollars to decarbonize our economy to achieve “net zero” by the year 2050, then how much will it reduce GMST by the year 2100, assuming the climate models are accurate? Please round your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your math!
If you can’t provide me with an answer to [that] question […] then here’s my follow-up: If you don’t know how much net zero emissions in the US would reduce GMST by 2100, are we supposed to just spend all that money and see what happens?
The eye-watering amounts spent on ‘de-carbonising’, for no clearly stated goal, begs the question of whether all those trillions could be better spent.
Why do efforts to mitigate exclusively center on reducing carbon emissions, and ignore more effective strategies such as building weather-resilient infrastructure and enforcing stricter zoning codes?
As Martz concludes, don’t expect any clear answers to those questions. All you’ll invariably get is an outraged ‘How dare you!’
