Clay Farris Naff
Sep 3, 2018 · 2 min read

Much to admire here, but this? “Smil was intrigued and taught himself programming to re-create the model for himself. ‘I saw it was utter nonsense,’ he recalls; the model was far too simple and easily skewed by initial assumptions. He constructed a similar model of how carbon dioxide emissions affect climate and found it similarly wanting. He understood the physics of the greenhouse effect and the potential for a carbon dioxide buildup to warm Earth, but models seemed too dependent on assumptions about things like clouds. Ever since, he’s held models of all kinds in contempt. ‘I have too much respect for reality,’ he says.

That’s absurd, and your response isn’t much better. Without models, the great pyramids of Giza could not have been constructed, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity would remain an untested hunch, and we’d have to rely on granny’s bunions for tomorrow’s weather.

That some models are poorly constructed, or that some phenomena are hard to model doesn’t invalidate the whole field. Climate models were crude at first, in part because modelers didn’t know enough, and in part because computing power was inadequate, but they’ve improved steadily. There are several ways to test their reliability, but the most significant one is by having them “predict” the climate of a period of the past where we have solid knowledge how the climate evolved, and then comparing performance with record.

Finally, I’m all for intellectual humility, but decisions require a smart assessment of consequences and the future in which they will play out. What’s the best way to make that assessment? Well, there’s divination, prayer, hunches, guessing … and then there’s science.

    Clay Farris Naff

    Written by

    Science & Religion Correspondent, The Humanist magazine. Opinions expressed do not represent the views of any organization.