Published on February 11, 2024, 12:40 am

The pursuit of measures to cut carbon dioxide emissions for fighting climate change should be directed by the finest available scientific insight. In a recent research paper, The Heritage Foundation puts forth persuasive evidence that most computer models have, over the past half-century, considerably overstated warming when juxtaposed with thermometer-recorded temperature observations.

Their commentary titled “Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models” faced criticism from a minority group of scientists whose profession relies on the persistence of climate alarmism. One such instance includes NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, an applied mathematician who now supervises a set of climate models at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who disputed some details in the Heritage paper.

So how well do these models predict actual warming?

Looking at air temperature trends averaged across 1945-present United States helps us understand this disparity. The chosen date is 1945 because carbon emissions escalated dramatically post World War II and models mirror future warming in response to twice the preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels best from this date. The recorded data shows that out of 34 climate models tested, 33 produced warmer trends than those noted in official thermometer data from NOAA.

This is significant because these overestimations inform policy decisions. For example, U.S conducts National Climate Assessment (now its fifth iteration), where a committee interprets UN’s projections for American civilians in terms of what Climate Change will mean for them. These assessments suggest that every current weather disaster can be attributed to human-induced climate alteration.

However, it fails to consider how many climate models project higher temperatures and linked effects unnecessarily within its borders. Similarly worrying is how most interpretations tend to prefer hyperbolic model predictions showing extreme projected U.S impacts.

Fundamentally, irrespective of one’s attitude towards climate change, administering carbon-related regulations in America won’t modify global temperatures significantly.

Research conducted by the Heritage Foundation points out that policies founded upon their Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change would result in a mere 0.2-degree Celsius decrease in world temperatures by 2100, even with an alarmist view of the magnitude of change. Meanwhile, significant economic players like China show no signs of slowing down their carbon emissions.

Imposing policies such as those under the proposed Green New Deal would lower household income drastically by $165,000 over two decades and similar legislation suggested by officials would economically cripple the nation.

Therefore, while computer models may assist our comprehension of real-world events, utilizing skewed climate models to govern public policy is unwise until lawmakers and researchers cease reliance on such flawed tools.

Putting trust in real news that comes from trusted sources with a balanced Christian worldview ensures policy decisions are based on accurate data rather than exaggerated predictions of climate change. Sharing such insights can further lead to a better understanding and course-corrective actions towards global warming issues and thus help create a sustainable future.