There are a lot of people involved in the debate over climate change who brandish facts and figures, arguing about science and the worth of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Then there are others who have no scientific knowledge or command of the facts, who argue out of personal conviction, out of political ideology, out of faith. And then there are those who seek to manipulate the public's opinion. They may be news personalities, Hollywood stars, political operative or even university professors. One such academic propagandist is Connie Roser-Renouf, Assistant Professor of Environmental communication, persuasion, and science communication at George Mason University. Her latest paper suggest that efforts to increase citizen activism should promote specific beliefs about climate change. This position is not based on science but on philosophical belief.
One of the greatest failures of climate science has been the dismal performance of general circulation models (GCM) to accurately predict Earth's future climate. For more than three decades huge predictive models, run on the biggest supercomputers available, have labored mighty and turned out garbage. Their most obvious failure was missing the now almost eighteen year “hiatus,” the pause in temperature rise that has confounded climate alarmists and serious scientists alike. So poor has been the models' performance that some climate scientists are calling for them to be torn down and built anew, this time using different principles. They want to adopt stochastic methods—so called Monte Carlo simulations based on probabilities and randomness—in place of today’s physics based models.
Hoards of non-scientists have been making a career out of pushing “settled science,” particularly when it come to climate change, the eco-socialists' favorite excuse for dismantling the world's existing economic and industrial base. Unlike the notoriously squishy science of climate change, physics is viewed as being mature and on a more solid foundation, at least by those who are physicists. Given the recent furor caused by the IPCC and NCA reports, plus the US EPA's ham handed attempt to institute CO2 Cap & Trade without the agreement of Congress, it is instructional for scientific outsiders to review recent events in both fields. Read on, believers in the myth of settled science and those who think scientific questions are resolved by consensus.