Vail Daily letter: Some models are valid, some models are not
Mr. Spitzer argues in his recent letter that since some models (Kepler’s) are valid, then all models must be valid. However, his description of Kepler’s reasoning process highlights the circular nature of climate models. Kepler started with observations of planetary motions and derived equations to explain and predict those motions. Bravo!
The climate modelers, on the other hand, start with the premise that changes in carbon dioxide are a major drive of climate change (a premise for which there is no evidence) and then build a model to justify the premise. Hence, any output of such a model is an example of circular reasoning, i.e. the conclusion is included in the premises.
To have built a valid model, the climate scientist would, at minimum, have to have observed that changes in carbon dioxide concentrations are always followed by a corresponding change in climate. What the data show, however, is that at times there is no observable relationship between climate and changes in the carbon dioxide level, and more recently, changes in climate have preceded changes in carbon dioxide levels. Therefore, the change in carbon dioxide cannot have caused the change in climate. Based on available evidence, the modeler should be trying to model the change in carbon dioxide brought about by changes in climate.
To recap, Kepler’s laws of motion are examples of valid models. So-called climate scientist’s models are circular arguments. Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at MIT, has stated that most, if not all, government funding for climate research should be eliminated for a substantial period of time in order to weed out the charlatans and religious zealots.