The New York Times Says Science Can Predict Climate Change As Accurately As Eclipses. Here Are 5 Problems With That.

No wonder they're failing.

All the focus on Monday has been about the solar eclipse, so naturally The New York Tiimes had to politicize a rare unifying moment in the country to make a statement about climate change:

Basically, the author of the piece, Justin Gillis, throws a tantrum that people listen to scientists when it comes to the eclipse — and the eclipse was predicted correctly — yet tune out scientists when it comes to their dire predictions on climate change.

Here are five problems with this argument.

1. Comparing the science behind predicting the eclipse to predicting climate science is not a valid analogy. The Daily Caller's Michael Bastasch argues:

Gillis forgets the mention that climate science is still in its infancy compared to astronomy, which has been studied for thousands of years. Ancient Babylonian priests tracked the movement of stars for religious purposes, and Aristarchus of Samos first suggested a heliocentric solar system in the 3rd Century B.C.

A more valid comparison would be weather forecasts, which are generally reliable when it comes to five-day forecasts, but once it gets to ten days it becomes very unpredictable.

2. The climate models have proven to be wrong thus far. In 2013, University of Alabama Huntsville Climate Science Professor Dr. John Christy evaluated 73 computer models cited in the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report at the time, and found that none of them correctly predicted that global temperatures would stay flat since 1996. And yet, the IPCC still declared that they were 95% confident that the primary driver behind climate change was mankind.

"I am baffled that the confidence increases when the performance of your models is conclusively failing," Christy told CNS News. "I cannot understand that methodology."

Despite what the alarmists say, that pause is still ongoing.

In fact, a new bevy of data shows that the Armageddon that is supposed to ensue has yet to occur. For example:

3. Some climate models have been downright fraudulent. The most infamous example of this was the Climategate emails showing how key scientists admitted to fudging the numbers to perpetuate the notion of man-made climate change, but there have been other instances of NASA engaging in that kind of data manipulation as well, as The Daily Wire has previously explained.

4. There is no consensus of scientists that believes that climate change is mostly driven by human activity. As explained here, numbers that claim that there is a consensus are skewed; the real figure is closer to 40-43%.

5. The reason why the science stating that climate change is driven by human activity is wrong is due to one simple fact: higher temperatures result in higher levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around. That's because nearly 100% of the energy entering the Earth comes from the sun, which results in more plants and hence more carbon dioxide.

In sum, it's not at all valid to compare the science behind predicting eclipses and predictions from climate science. The former is more clear-cut science dating back thousands of years; the latter is relatively new and has been politicized to serve the ends of statists who seek to use climate change as an excuse to de-industrialize the West as part of their utopian agenda.

Follow Aaron Bandler on Twitter.

What's Your Reaction?