Thorner/Ingold: Hurricane predictions are “imperfect,” while global warming is “settled science?”

By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold - 

How is it that science can’t predict the location of a hurricane three days hence, but Global Warming experts are absolutely sure what the climate will be in 100 years? Settled science, they say. 

Models and tracking trajectories for Hurricane Irma as on Friday morning, Sept. 8, showed that Irma had weakened from Category 5 to Category 4 strength, but still represented an extreme danger to much of Southern Florida, as well as portions of northern Cuba and the southernmost Bahama Islands. 

In the U.S., the worst of the storm was expected to be felt in South Florida. The Florida Keys took the full force of the storm, with Category 3 or 4 winds and a dangerous storm surge of up to 10 feet. Southwest Florida was expected to see a storm surge of 6 – 12 feet. Category 2 winds would potentially affect the east coast of Florida from Miami to West Palm Beach, and the west coast of Florida from the Keys to at least Naples.

There was more than a 30% chance that Category 1 hurricane-force winds would affect the Florida west coast from Naples to Tampa, and the Florida east coast north of West Palm Beach, as well as the Orlando area.  A large and dangerous storm surge was likely to affect the entire east coast of Florida, and well as Georgia and South Carolina. 

A fundamental principle of science is that any theory can be challenged, and replaced by a better theory if warranted. Yet those who challenge Climate Change, or at least man’s contribution thereof, are regarded as heretics. “Heretic” as in the sense that the only institutions which cannot tolerate dissent are religious in nature. Those that ascribe to the “settled science” of Global Warming regard dissent as inherently evil. 

Another tenet of science is that experiments must be reproducible. If not, the theory is probably false. We saw this thirty years ago with “cold fusion,” which supposedly occurred when hydrogen was adsorbed on the surface of a platinum catalyst. Of course, nobody else could duplicate the results, which is hardly surprising considering the disparity in the activation energy (the threshold before the reaction occurs) between chemical and nuclear reactions.

How about “polywater” which threatened to congeal the lakes and oceans if allowed to escape the laboratory? About every twenty years or so, a theory so outrageous that it defies common sense comes to light, then quietly vanishes. The ancient Greeks believed in Olympic gods and chicken entrails. Most of the programs on the Discovery Channel involve paranormal events or ancient aliens. My how we have progressed!

Climate Change experts take a different tack – deep concealment for the basic climate data under consideration, as well as the methods and models employed in their analysis. This may explain that out of over 24.000 peer-reviews scientific articles published in 2016, only about 200 involved Climate Science, and 1/3rd of those in rebuttal of man’s contribution to warming. The so-called “97% Consensus” is based on about 4000 articles since 1991 published by those “experts” interested enough to publish. There are severe academic repercussions against those who would publish in dissent. We are waiting for one on the interpretation of chicken entrails.

We suppose we will eventually all denounce science and embrace the new order. Al Gore will don his pointy hat (from his father’s estate) and sit in inquisition.