Climate and energy writer Norman Rogers has published an excellent article on the American Thinker website addressing the shortcomings of coronavirus models and climate models. Rogers points out that coronavirus models began predicting up to 2 million American deaths, only to be adjusted down to its current prediction of 60,000 deaths. The difference between 2 million deaths and 60,000 deaths is incredibly large, yet that is how much the coronavirus models have failed.
The political Left attempts to smear anybody who questions coronavirus models as attacking scientists and attacking science. However, scrutinizing models that are being employed as justifications to restrict Americans’ freedoms is not attacking scientists. It is, instead, performing science. And scrutinizing a scientist’s model is not the same as attacking the scientist. Most or all modelers are presumably creating their models in order to help policymakers make wise decisions. But noble motives do not convey scientific infallibility, especially on topics where we are making so many speculative assumptions. As Dr. Anthony Fauci says, “Models are only as good as the assumptions that you put into the models. And those assumptions that start off when you don’t have very much data at all, or the data you have is uncertain, then you put these assumptions in and you get these wide ranges of calculations of what might happen.”
Climate models are no different than coronavirus models in that they will only be as accurate as their underlying assumptions. As wildly off-base as the coronavirus models have been, climate models have even more uncertain underlying assumptions than the coronavirus models. Accordingly, climate models have been – and are likely to continue being – at least as off-base as the coronavirus models have been.
More HERE
