Ours is a society obsessed by juvenilia. Where once children were best seen and not heard, since at least the 1960s, the adolescent has come to be regarded as somehow the acme of human development. This is frankly rubbish, both physically and cognitively.
Physically, human beings reach their peak in their late 20s to 30s. Cognitive maturity is a much different matter. Some abilities peak early, others much later, but the sweet spot for human mental ability seems to be in our 40s, at least.
Adolescence, on the other hand, combines the worst excesses of ignorance and egoism. Adolescents – as anyone who’s ever raised one, or has a clear-eyed memory of being one – are fools who yet think they know everything. They are the Dunning-Kruger effect incarnate.
Which brings me to Greta Thunberg. Thunberg is the poster-child of adolescent arrogance and ignorance. Like all adolescents, she is absolutely certain in her know-nothingness. “The science is crystal-clear,” she thunders.
Except that’s not.
What Thunberg either doesn’t know, or is incapable of grasping, is that none of her doom-saying is based on fact. Not a word of it. Every scary claim of climate hellfire and damnation is based entirely on computer model projections.
Projections are not predictions. Computer models are not the real world. In fact, they’re utter crap at representing the real world. Any number of scientists have tried to point this out against the media-led clamour of wolf-crying and yammerings about “certainty” and “consensus”. Most recently, Dr. Nakamura Mototaka and Dr. Patrick Frank have published a book and a paper, respectively, on the fallacy that global climate models (GCMs) are flawless predictors of the future.
Dr. Frank has published a peer-reviewed paper on “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections”, which evaluates the reliability of GCMs. Frank’s paper does not examine the actual terrestrial climate, but focuses “strictly on the behavior and reliability of climate models alone”.
Remember: these models are the sole “evidence” for Thunberg’s claims of climate doom.
Frank shows that models contain massive uncertainties, far beyond the range of any projected temperature changes. So much so that, as Frank puts it, they’re equivalent to a mathematical model that predicts 2+2=5±0.1.
“The unavoidable conclusion,” Frank writes. “Is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.”
Dr. Nakamura is even more blunt: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public”.
As Nakamura says, while climate models might be useful for purely academic studies, they are “useless pieces of junk or worse” when it comes to climate forecasting. Once upon a time, way back in its third report in 2001, the IPCC admitted as much. But that epistemic humility has been successively quashed as the IPCC has become more and more the political playground of green-left activists.
Almost all of the “crystal clear science” that Greta Thunberg thunders about is built, like a wonky Jenga stack, on these deeply-flawed models. The output of the GCM “black boxes” is just assumed to be reliable. None of this is “evidence”. It’s not “experiment”, nor is it “empirical”. It’s guesswork on stilts.
Yet, on the basis of this wobbly guesswork, we are being asked – nay, ordered – to fundamentally alter every aspect of our lives, from our energy use, to our travel, our diet and even how many children we are allowed to have. Baby megalomaniacs like Thunberg demand that we hand over trillions of dollars of public money and dismantle our entire modern civilisation.
All on the basis of “useless pieces of junk”.
To use an analogy: imagine if Boeing designed a radically new form of aeroplane. Yet they never made physical prototypes or conducted test flights. Their design process consisted entirely of computer modelling. Some of which flew, but even more of which crashed, or never got off the ground in the first place. Some of the key components weren’t even modelled by the computers, but Boeing just assumed that they’d work.
Then, you are invited to fly on the first-ever flight of the first-ever physical version of the plane. You’d tell them to go to hell.
The world must do the same to Greta Thunberg and her army of infant apparatchiks.