Wednesday, July 09, 2025
64.0°F

Climate change modeling is not empirical science

Bonner County Daily Bee | UPDATED 5 years, 5 months AGO
| January 12, 2020 12:00 AM

Regarding letters of Dec. 31, 2019:

Jack DeBaun pits his preferred media bias fact check against CFACT without giving any reason why we should accept one over the other. But since MBFC tells blatant lies about things, such as calling Oath Keepers an “anti-government organization,” then why should we believe what they say about other fact checkers? And why should we believe Jack when he prefers MBFC’s opinion over CFACT? Clearly, Jack does not care about objective truth, only what supports his preconceived notions.

Is there really, as Jack says, “overwhelming” evidence for disruptive climate change? The fact is, we are neither in the middle of a climate crisis, nor are we on the verge of one. None of the websites Jack referred to indicate that we are. Ultimately, it is up to the fanatics to prove that we are actually in a crisis and, until they do, we have no need to worry.

Ken Thacker misrepresented my letter when he interpreted my opinion as being that a consensus on something means that it is “definitely false.” What I actually said was that a consensus of opinion does not make something “necessarily true.” There is a big difference.

Ken compares climate modeling with gambling, which it is. However, he fails to note that such modeling is not empirical science. It does not take place in a laboratory and is only falsifiable by waiting years, decades, or even longer to see what the results will be. This is not true science.

MONTE HEIL

Sagle

MORE IMPORTED STORIES

Worsening problems are not solved by ignoring them
Bonner County Daily Bee | Updated 5 years, 6 months ago
Consensus or junk science?
Daily Inter-Lake | Updated 11 years, 11 months ago
Either something is true or it is not
Bonner County Daily Bee | Updated 5 years, 8 months ago