Talking of the fallacy in climate activists, the fallacy of climate modellers is even more fascinating.
Why did the mean global temperature decreased dramatically over about a 15+-year interval (starting around 1940) while CO2 continued to increase? The drop was so severe that some scientists and the media were trumpeting the possibility of climate catastrophe due to a new ice age. We all deserve an explanation but none is provided.
However, it's my understanding it’s impossible for AGW believers to give us an explanation as it would shatter the AGW thesis that increases in CO2 will always increase temperature. That's why they remain silent. Al Gore says it's destined to rise 3-5C over the next 50-100 years as a result of doubling CO2. The truth is he has no substantial scientific evidence to support that prediction. It is an opinion based on crude computer models of climate change that does not sufficiently take into account many factors, such as all the water vapour effects, which if they did would have reduced the figure dramatically. Then there are the variability of all the other natural driving forces and negative feedbacks, such as the various types and distributions of clouds, solar activity, cosmic rays, etc., that the computer models ignore.
The leading scientist Tim Palmer at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (widely regarded as the foremost atmospheric modelling centre) says such forecasts are no better than guesses.
I know enough about dynamic deterministic and other forms of climate modelling techniques form my own research as a scientist some time ago to know he is absolutely correct.
The MIT professor Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's most respected atmospheric physicists, discussed the use of supposed "climate models," and quipped that climate models are an example of "unintelligent design".
It’s worth noting that none of the current models forecast temperatures would stop rising 10 years ago and look like they are falling instead. So there is at least one other factor that is more important than CO2 and the models don’t know what it is. How strange is that?
Then there’s the missing hot spot in the troposphere, which the models say should be there but is not. I could go on and on.
So, why do some people and most politicians take Al Gore’s predictions based on these computer models that the temperature will rise by 3-5C so seriously when it’s no more than a guess, very likely a bad guess? One might as well throw darts at a board. He might as well go back to his original prediction of I think 6C or higher. It makes no difference – these are all guesses. One might as well guess it will be a drop 3C. There’s no way of knowing what the temperature will be in 50-100 years with a doubling of CO2 without taking into account several other factors, which are completely ignored by the models. It’s all smoke and mirrors stuff. AGW believers however can’t ignore the fact they agree with his predictions. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be arguing the point. There’s also no point in discussing the numerous other questions and concerns about his other predictions such as catastrophic sea level rises, which are equally as absurd until this chapter is closed.
Yes, the fallacy of climate modellers is interesting to observer, especially when you consider trillions of dollars are to be wasted on their incorrect predictions.
