One thought on “Milloy talks climate craziness, Biden’s NEPA move and shareholder proposals with OANN’s Kara McKinney”
In being interviewed, Milloy characterizes the Biden Administration’s energy policy as “climate craziness.” This characterization is accurate but the reason for this accuracy is not widely known.
Today’s climate models do not “predict” the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth’s climate system. Instead, they “project” these outcomes. Climate craziness is motivated by the assumption that “project” is synonymous with “predict” but in the context of a climate model the two terms differ, for “predictions” from a climate model would support establishment of a degree of control over the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth’s climate system but “projections” fail to do so.
A “projection” differs from a “prediction” in the respect that a “projection” is to an event that is “abstract” while a “prediction” is to an event that is “concrete.” Events of the two types differ in the respect that a “concrete” event has a location in space and time while an “abstract” event lacks such a location. For example, a “rock concert” is an event that is “concrete” if it has a location in space and time and “abstract” if it lacks such a location. An event of the former type has the property of observability while an event of the latter type lacks this property. Were it to exist, the statistical population underlying a climate model would be composed of “concrete” events but for today’s climate models there are only “abstract” events. Thus, no statistical population underlies each of today’s climate models. Consequently the “projections” of these models lack statistical significance. The illusion that a statistical population underlies each of these models is created by an application of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness in the text of the argument that is made by each such model under which an “abstract” event is treated as if it were a “concrete” event in making this argument. “Climate craziness” is a consequence from an application of this fallacy.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
In being interviewed, Milloy characterizes the Biden Administration’s energy policy as “climate craziness.” This characterization is accurate but the reason for this accuracy is not widely known.
Today’s climate models do not “predict” the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth’s climate system. Instead, they “project” these outcomes. Climate craziness is motivated by the assumption that “project” is synonymous with “predict” but in the context of a climate model the two terms differ, for “predictions” from a climate model would support establishment of a degree of control over the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth’s climate system but “projections” fail to do so.
A “projection” differs from a “prediction” in the respect that a “projection” is to an event that is “abstract” while a “prediction” is to an event that is “concrete.” Events of the two types differ in the respect that a “concrete” event has a location in space and time while an “abstract” event lacks such a location. For example, a “rock concert” is an event that is “concrete” if it has a location in space and time and “abstract” if it lacks such a location. An event of the former type has the property of observability while an event of the latter type lacks this property. Were it to exist, the statistical population underlying a climate model would be composed of “concrete” events but for today’s climate models there are only “abstract” events. Thus, no statistical population underlies each of today’s climate models. Consequently the “projections” of these models lack statistical significance. The illusion that a statistical population underlies each of these models is created by an application of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness in the text of the argument that is made by each such model under which an “abstract” event is treated as if it were a “concrete” event in making this argument. “Climate craziness” is a consequence from an application of this fallacy.