Absence of ‘Climate Equation,’ is Proof of Unsettled Science
Science and especially physical science is governed by a collection of equations which lay out in concise fashion things we know about the world around us. We have equations that explain gravity, define the acceleration of falling bodies, explain the inner workings of atomic and subatomic structure, the power of magnetic and electromagnetic attraction, and even define a theoretical framework of multidimensional space which may prove to be our most complete attempt so far to encapsulate the mechanisms which create reality on every level of universal existence.
You likely know it as String Theory or M-Theory.
So where, pray tell, is the equation which will now and forevermore, predictably and repeatably explain and define the temperature and the climate of the planet earth? Where is it? Have you seen one? I certainly haven’t. Which is a strange, given that the arrival of such an equation, the Climate Equation, we’ll call it for ease of reference, especially in the current climate, no pun articulated, would certainly have been hailed as the hallmark of scientific discovery in this single issue obsessed, foundational grant money driven epoch in scientific history.
And let there be no doubt, such an announcement would be impossible to miss or overlook. There would be headlines. There would be fanfare. There would be jubilation. There would be a world tour. There would loud exultant choruses of triumph from every quadrant of the Anthropogenic Climate Change encampment and similarly loud and jubilant howls of mocking derision against so-called deniers of man caused climate change as their antiquarian skepticism would be relegated once and for all to the ash heap of history.
One can imagine Al Gore or Barack Obama in full orgasmic roar announcing the arrival of such a theoretical postulate, complete with Nobel acclimation and media frenzy for finally defining in total, the myriad variables and factors which explain for us the all important number when it comes to defining the climate of our earth: average global temperature. In short, such an equational theory would in simple and concisely arranged mathematical terminology, account for and quantify every known variable that contributes to the measurable global temperature.
It would by necessity contain a set and subset of every measurable and significant factor known to influence global temperature and it would arrange both set and subset in a simple, elegant, mathematically concise and repeatably provable equation that would serve as the bedrock equational explanation for global temperature on good ole planet earth. Doesn’t that sound like a reasonable explanation and expectation for any scientific postulate that’s going to be quoted as rote gospel in defining the future of human living standard and expectation of human comfort?
If Climate science and the future of it were meant to follow historical scientific precedent, it would certainly make common scientific sense that the first order of business would be a provable predictive equation that could be used every year henceforth to predict and define the simplest governing statistic in defining the climate of the earth: average yearly global temperature.
The running establishment line in the Climate Change debate is that CO2 correlates directly with global temperature. Which dictates explicitly that the scientists pushing the party line have already solved for CO2 in a quantifiable, equational outlay of global climate, which in like fashion dictates that they have also cataloged, exhaustively and in perfect proportions, each and every variable responsible for even the most minute statistical inflection and refraction of global climate. In other words, they cannot have ‘solved’ for CO2 unless they’ve arrived at an indisputable, incontrovertible, repeatable Climate Equation.
But the truth is, there isn’t one.
There is no Climate Equation. Because we don’t know how to do that yet. And likely never will. Even a starting list of rudimentary variables that we already know must be included would fill multiple universities worth of classroom blackboards. The proofs and theorem related to such a predictive model cannot with any confidence be written down, much less arranged in a way that could ever approach the simple elegance of Einstein’s E=MC squared, or the like.
And unless and until there is serious attempt made to arrive at a repeatable and logically defined equation that even approaches predictive accuracy for global temperature, the absence of a singular Climate Equation and the inescapable conclusion derived thereof, is and must remain, that global climate science and predictive models used to sell the idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change are nothing more than parlor trick and farce.
Otherwise, we would have already and with great fanfare, handed out the Nobel Prize in Physics to end all….to some fabulously famous scientist who would be celebrated as the savior of all mankind for defining empirically the monolithic equational guidepost for determining human action necessary to maintain optimum global temperature for all time.
But that’s just another in a long list of unknowable numbers scattered like flotsam around a non-scientific house of cards known as Climate religion that represents a leap too large and ill-advised for even the likes of Soren Kierkegaard or others in a long list of mighty intellects who were willing to profess public faith in a creator God.
So, give me a Climate Equation….and give it to me now. And until and unless you can, don’t speak another word of predictive theoretical balderdash about why CO2 or the color of tree frogs in Peru or the size of Bolivian strawberries should be singled out as significant predictive variable in the demonstrably heinous social deception program that would have all of us kneel at the altar of carbon worship.
Your bluff is showing. And I ain’t buying.