There is a principle in Physics called the anthropomorphic principle which says the laws of physics should not assume some special place for man or our place in the universe.
Climate Science suffers from a lack of data. We really have only good data for the last 40 years. Before that data was accumulated from sporadic locations and sources. Different instruments, different proxies and in most cases from very few locations. What we know even about extreme events is very small. No one kept track of storms, measured them and where people didn’t have a city there was no one to even write something incidental down.
So, when climate scientists use the last 40 years to conclude something about the last 200 years or the next 200 years they are operating in a “anthropomorphic” way. They are assuming that when we get 3 big storms in a row it is extraordinary but in fact we have no idea if other people 100, 200, 300, 400 or whatever experienced the exact same weather.
This is not to say that CO2 isn’t rising or that we don’t have some measurements but in general our data we have on climate and the weather is very very lacking and is dependent on low precision and few data points.
For 40 years we have had half a dozen satellites that measure the atmosphere uniformly and thus have a powerful and fairly complete record. Before that we have thermometers in a few locations and before that tree rings from hundreds of trees that are extremely inaccurate and may not be reliable at all and ice cores drilled into arctic regions with no more than 30 locations worldwide. Constructing a temperature from such sparse data is highly suspect and imprecise. The ocean is far worse. We have only had buoys measuring temperature of half the ocean for 17 years. The other half continues to be unmeasured and before that we had much much less than we have for other things. Lastly for storms we have almost no accurate information of anything for any period of time. This is because of the shortness of our scientific literacy and the lack of proxies that are suitably accurate.
The assumption has to be that weather was at least as bad in the past. The reason is that just looking at the last century we can see that millions would die from a single natural disaster event. Heat waves, droughts, storms, famines would kill 10s, 100s of thousands and even millions. Today no event has killed more than a thousand people in years. In the US we had 3 huge storms in a row that in recent years killed more than 1,000 each. Less than 100 people died in each. This is happening worldwide.
Scientists tell us these are big storms. They say the energy or wind speed is huge. They tell us temperatures are rising but the effects of these events is less and less. Many people are affected and the 3 storms caused a lot of damage but this is largely because people have more to damage and its worth more. We just don’t know.
Many people can only process the latest disaster or temperatures and seem to assume if it is hot, it must be the hottest EVER. If there is a storm, it was the worst ever. This simply reflects lack of education and anthropomorphic thinking, maybe lack of experience. One should never assume that this is the worst or the best or that this has never happened before and if you hear that you should be immediately skeptical and demand solid proof of some sort. It is just incredibly unlikely that we live in this special time.
Consider that once every 2 millions years or so the Earth experiences a major asteroid hit and every 60 million years or so a serious hit so bad to in some cases wipe out 50% or more of all life on Earth. People are assuming that the “normal” is a static world locked pretty much to the current experience of their tiny brains last few years experience when in fact just 20,000 years ago temperatures were 8C(16F) colder than today worldwide. California was covered in an ice sheet all year.
Humans have a poor sense of time and we live remarkably short lives compared to geologic time. For 60,000,000 years during which almost all living things today evolved and prospered the temperature of the Earth was 8C (16F) warmer on average than today and the atmosphere had 2,000+ ppm of CO2 or 5 times todays elevated levels. There is no reason to think that adding 100ppm will end life on Earth or make one hill of beans difference.
We have to conclude that we are in a learning period. Anyone who tells you they know stuff about the climate or that today is warmer than ever is not a scientist. A scientist should admit what they don’t know. We are just learning about climate. We are just learning about what happens when this happens or that happens or why these things happen. The information is progressing and we are learning but we are not in any position to state things with high precision. To say otherwise is unscientific.
This is a big problem I have with much of the climate science orthodoxy. They claim things are settled when it is prima facia IMPOSSIBLE for that to be the case. We are learning things everyday that challenge all previous assumptions. Climate scientists have egg on their faces a thousand times for bad calls and bad studies. We simply don’t have the data or the science to say anything with surety. This is normal. We have to learn. That is normal.
The fact is 100% of the predictions made by the alarmists have proven false or there is no evidence to back up their theories. That’s what they are. Theories. We have a long way to go.