Global Warming Is All Guesses based on controversial 'modeling'
From the Caltech Michelin Lecture delivered by science novelist Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology.
April/May 2004 magazine, The American Enterprise
To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is placed on models. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynman called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands. Nobody believes a weather prediction 12 hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And to make huge financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?
Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the model makers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system—no one is sure—these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.
Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?
Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about conditions in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horse manure? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80 percent of its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900 (nuclear fission), Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan were getting more than 30 percent from this previously unknown source. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, and MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, Internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, Prozac, leotards, lap dancing, e-mail, tape recorder, CD’s, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, Teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.
Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Convince me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it.
I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living,
we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new
technology. I refer to the Green Revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich
said, “The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world
will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of are going to starve to
death.” Ten years later, he predicted 4 billion people would die during
the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that
was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn’t ever going
to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers
predicted even ten years ago. In 1900, climate modelers anticipated
a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think
the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]