COLUMN: Models imperfect at best

I wish people who have no scientific background would quit taking Cliff Harris to task!

I have a chemistry degree and a background in chemical engineering and especially in modelling of physical processes. These people have no idea regarding the lack of “factual” science that goes into building models and predicting climate change.

This is not to speak of the many times in the history of the Earth when the CO2 levels were much higher than today, but seem to be disregarded by climate modellers.

We are looking at a couple of hundreds of years of climate data compared to what? Billions of years of Earth history.

The climate change people would like everyone to believe that their models (that predict all the gloom and doom) are accurate years, even decades into the future. What no one remembers to ask them is if their models are so good, why can the weather be predicted accurately only (at best) 10 to 14 days in the future? Huh! Two weeks?

Let us also look at some of the data collection used to model climate change.

How about the weather station that ended up in the middle of an asphalt parking lot. Wonder what happened to the temperatures there.

Or how about the weather station that was outside an office that had an air conditioner installed in its window and was blowing the discharged air right into the weather station’s sensors. I wonder what happened to those temperature readings?

Does anyone realize the gyrations and “normalization” that modellers crank their data through before using it?

Give me a break!

FRANK D. GUNSEOR

Coeur d’Alene