Scientific / Technical Ignorance in Advanced Western Society (2)
Computer Simulation Challenges
How many people in the general public know that the entire theory of destructive “global warming” rests on the output of computer simulations of the earth’s climate? Surely it is a small minority. How many people in the general public know even the most rudimentary facts about how a computer simulation is constructed, what are its limitations and how to judge the credibility of its results? A tiny minority is clearly the case.
I actually know quite a bit about this general area having managed development of a comprehensive and sophisticated commuter simulation of wireless systems. Mind you I am not claiming knowledge of world climate computer modeling. However, it is certainly true that the understanding of wireless system operation is massively more mature and certain than that concerning the earth’s climate. It is also true that the scope and complexity of a wireless system computer simulation is a tiny fraction of that required for world climate. Therefore, were it the case that even for much simpler wireless system models there were deep, intractable issues concerning evaluation of the credibility and accuracy of their results, this would then also apply to earth climate modeling.
It turns out that there were major issues concerning credibility and accuracy. Other groups in the company developed their own computer simulations. Since a multitude of engineering decisions had to be made on model application and parameter settings these models didn’t always agree. Given that for each group professional ego and future funding was at stake it became impossible to resolve these differences. This failure significantly undermined senior leadership confidence, as tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in contractual performance were regularly in the balance.
If, due to the often unpredictable and chaotic behavior of wireless signals propagating in the real world (among many other issues), it was exceedingly difficult to assess the credibility and accuracy of wireless system simulators, then the difficulty is massively more for assessing earth climate simulations.
The difference is that, whereas with the wireless company incentives of profit/loss pressed towards truthful resolution, in “climate change” all incentives press towards ignoring these issues. For the scientific community future funding is directly dependent on the belief that the results are true. For the media, profit and influence are maximized by reporting terrifying results. And for the funding politicians future political power is directly related to frightening the general public into voting for more government power to address the “problem.” Thus, although there are huge issues with the credibility and accuracy of computer climate modeling, their discussion is effectively suppressed by all of the interest’s groups who benefit from climate hysteria.
Yes, I know that I’ll now be branded a “climate denier.” But then, when all the opposition has is character assassination you can be sure that the facts aren’t on their side. I’ll also point out that 90+% of those making this accusation don’t know the first thing about the actual scientific method, let alone computer modeling or climate science. But, when you terrify people with incredible claims what can be expected other than emotion overriding critical thinking and common sense?