I’m restructuring my workplace at home, by moving from one room to another, that was heavily modified and recabled. In doing this, one has to glance to all these many collected items and articles, and decide: trash it or keep it? These heroic decisions are sometimes made more easy, when one stumbles on one of these very outstanding articles, that shine like a beacon amid the stormy waves of platitudes, nonsense and boring pomposity.
John Reid’s “Climate Modelling Nonsense” published by Quadrant Online in 2009 is such a gem.
John Reid is a PhD physicist from Tasmania, who worked in atmospheric physics and fluid dynamic modelling: so this guy really knows about what he writes! Let me cite some of the most memorable sentences of his article:
1. “(Climatologist) do not seek to invalidate their models; they only seek supporting evidence”
2. “Water vapour positive feedback is only an assumption: but, importantly for the modellers, it is an assumption which makes the models work.”
3. “…climate prediction, as it is carried out by those organizations which come under the aegis of the IPCC, is not science. It is a superstition, similar to astrology or homeopathy.”
4. “Over the last few years, with remarkable rapidity, AGW theory has gone from a scientific curiosity to a politically correct catechism… it seems to fulfill a human need for sacrifice…It is the ancient myth about guilt and sin and redemption in a new guise”.
This last point rings bells with me (I have been educated in a catholic environment, where these notions of guilt, sin and redemption were ubiquitous). The great French philosopher Serge Galam has written an article “Global Warming: The Sacrificial Temptation” which is a must-read, and further dwells down into this problem of human psychology, which makes an honest and intelligent climate debate so difficult.