Everyone in the Church of Climate Change, from Al Gore to Bill Nye, likes to cite scary climate models that show the world either flooding, freezing, or dying in some gruesome way because of man’s inability to jump on board with the left’s climate centered regulations. But are these climate models to be trusted?
Not by a long shot.
According to physicist William Happer, an actual scientist, no computer is powerful enough to compute all of the factors and subtle changes to accurately predict any foreseeable changes to the climate.
We can barely figure out an accurate prediction for weather for the next day, what makes people think climate models would be any different? To make this point, Happer teamed up with Prager U to give people the real story behind climate data, and how what you’re being fed by climate fear mongers and the mainstream media isn’t just inaccurate, it’s a flat-out lie.
Happer begins by giving his highly impressive bonafides, having taught at Princeton to Columbia for decades, and peer-reviewed hundreds of papers as well as co-authored several books. One of these books was about the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment.
“In short, I know a lot about the earth’s atmosphere and climate,” said Happer. “I also know a lot about long-term predictive climate models,” he continues. And I know they don’t work. They haven’t worked in the past. They don’t work now. And it’s hard to imagine when, if ever, they’ll work in the foreseeable future.”
Happer goes on to explain that weather is about as complicated as the human brain. There are so many variables, factors, and unknowns that predicting what the weather is next to impossible.
“For the purposes of illustration, let’s just focus our attention on water,” said Happer. “The earth is essentially a water planet. A major aspect of climate involves the complicated interaction between two very turbulent fluids: the atmosphere, which holds large amounts of water (think rain and snow), and the oceans, which cover fully 70% of the earth’s surface. We can’t predict what effect the atmosphere is going to have on future temperatures because we can’t predict cloud formations.”
“It’s devilishly difficult to predict what a fluid will do. Trying to figure out what two fluids will do in interaction with each other on a planetary scale over long periods of time is close to impossible,” he adds.
As an example, Happer reminds us of Hurricane Irma predictions in regards to its path. All the models showed the hurricane hitting the east coast of Florida, yet it defied all predictions and headed west up the gulf. Despite all the real-time data, the predictions were still wrong.
Happer then moves in on climate prediction models for the kill, asking if “any rational person” could “believe that computer models can precisely predict temperatures decades from now?”
“The answer is, they can’t. That’s why, over the last 30 years, one climate prediction after another –- based on computer models -– has been wrong,” said Happer. “They’re wrong because even the most powerful computers can’t solve all the equations needed to accurately describe climate.”
Happer then went after the “scientists” that write these models.
“Instead of admitting this, some climate scientists replace the highly complex equations that describe the real-world climate with highly simplified ones—their computer models,” said Happer. “Discarding the unmanageable details, modelers “tune” their simplified equations with lots of adjustable inputs—numbers that can be changed to produce whatever result the modelers want.”
“That’s not science. That’s science fiction,” said Happer.