A new study published Monday explains why sea levels have not been rising as much as predicted — “thirsty continents” are absorbing extra water. Perhaps this discovery will encourage humility among climate scientists.
Tom Hartsfield, a scientist and writer with a PhD in physics from the University of Texas, explained that this isn’t a failing of science so much as a call for nuance in a politicized field.
Our global system of air currents, ocean currents, cloud patterns, resonant temperature cycles, energy storage and release mechanisms, and further processes is mind-bogglingly complex.
Presently, the best climate models fall many orders of magnitude short of the power and intricacy needed to effectively predict the long-term climate patterns that emerge from the interactions of all these planetary systems. And that’s not a failure of science; it’s just the reality of how tough the problem is.
But there is a failure of science occurring as well, Hartsfield notes.
The failure is the lack of transparency and honesty about how feeble these models are and how much we should stake on their all-too-fallible forecasts. Thus the same problem continues: climate science has once again botched a prediction that its models were underequipped to make.
It seems that there can be no moderate and honest discussion of this issue. Skeptics are singled out in creepy enemies lists. Actually, we’re now supposed to call them deniers, as though they were disputing the existence of HIV or the holocaust. Numerous scientists, as well as senators, anti-vaccination Kennedys, and clickbait purveyors have even called for the imprisonment and legal prosecution of those who disagree with them.
Hartsfield lists many dire climate predictions that have failed to materialize. But even after they’re eventually disproven, alarmist models are still touted as “undebatable apocalyptic predictors.” Climate alarmists act as though they’re fighting a holy war and cannot tolerate any heretical questioning of declared dogma. This is not what the American people deserve from their scientific institutions, Hartsfield argues. It is time to join the 21st century and embrace scientific debate.
The crusader mentality of climate researchers leads them away from the factual debate and empirical accounting of sound science. We really deserve more from our publicly funded scientific establishments.
Amen to that.