• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Fat Tail Daily

Investment Ideas From the Edge of the Bell Curve

  • Menu
    • Commodities
      • Resources and Mining
      • Copper
      • Gold
      • Iron Ore
      • Lithium
      • Silver
      • Graphite
      • Rare Earths
    • Technology
      • AI
      • Bitcoin
      • Cryptocurrency
      • Energy
      • Financial Technology
      • Bio Technology
    • Market Analysis
      • Latest ASX News
      • Dividend Shares
      • ETFs
      • Stocks and Bonds
    • Macro
      • Australian Economy
      • Central Banks
      • World Markets
    • Small Caps
    • More
      • Investment Guides
      • Premium Research
      • Editors
      • About
      • Contact Us
  • Latest
  • Fat Tail Series
  • About Us
Latest

The Green Fraud: How Climate Alarmists Are Scamming You (Part Three)

Like 0

By Jim Rickards, Saturday, 29 July 2023

The climate is changing as it has for billions of years. Climate change is one of the most complex phenomena ever addressed by science and perhaps the most difficult to model.

The nature and causes of climate change are a worthy challenge for the best scientists using the most sophisticated tools available. Unfortunately, the study of climate change has been co-opted by pseudoscientists using flawed models, rigged data, and hyperbolic claims echoed by ill-informed media and politicians with hidden agendas.

Among the best-known boosters of climate alarm are Gillian Tett at the Financial Times and BlackRock’s Laurence ‘Larry’ D Fink.

Fortunately, there are rigorous scientists using hard data and robust models to address the phenomenon. This more scientific group includes Michael Shellenberger, Steven E Koonin, Bjørn Lomborg, Bruce C Bunker, MJ Sangster, and many more.

These sober voices mostly agree that slight global warming is detectable, but it’s not a crisis and will not become a crisis in the foreseeable future.

They concur that it’s unclear whether CO2 emissions are the main cause of warming, even if they are a contributing cause. They point to other causes including solar cycles, ocean salinity, ocean currents like El Niño and La Niña, cloud cover, aerosols, volcanoes, agricultural practices, and natural methane release.

There are also numerous official reports that reach the same conclusion. Although, you may have to scan the footnotes to discover that official reports produce scary headlines heavily diluted by detailed content.

The single most important contribution of real scientists is to demonstrate how badly flawed the models used by the climate alarmists are.

A climate model divides the surface of the planet into a grid with squares of about 360 square miles (932 square kilometres) each over land surfaces, and 36 square miles (92 square kilometres) each over the oceans.

That’s about 101 million squares. Each square is extrapolated into a stack about 30 miles (70 kilometres) high to the outer edge of the stratosphere. All weather occurs in this zone, with most weather occurring within 10 miles (26 kilometres) of the earth’s surface in the troposphere.

The vertical stacks are sliced horizontally into thin layers like pancakes, and each layer is analysed separately for climate conditions in that slice, the impact of such conditions on adjacent pancakes in adjacent stacks, and so on. One must model this activity to a first approximation before getting to recursive functions.

If each pancake is one mile thick, that comes to 3.03 billion pancakes. Analysing one pancake is tricky. Analysing 3.03 billion pancakes is mind-boggling. Analysing the interaction of each of the 3.03 billion pancakes with each of the other 3.03 billion pancakes, even allowing for attenuated interaction at a distance, is a super-linear function that borders on the impossible in terms of computational complexity!

One scientist estimates that if we had supercomputers 1000 times faster than today’s computers, the run time on the problem described above would be several months.

Climatology is complexity theory par excellence.

So how do scientists work with models that cannot be run with today’s computers? They make assumptions. Lots of assumptions.

This process begins with a recognition that there are no direct observations of most of the atmospheric slices.

We have satellites and weather stations recording temperature and precipitation, but those inputs include only a small fraction of the surface areas and heights described.

The point is that climate models are so complex and sensitive to assumptions that scientists can get almost any result they want by tweaking inputs and running multiple scenarios.

It also means the outputs are mostly worthless because of unfounded assumptions, computational complexity, and flawed model design.

Most climate models are so deficient they can’t even simulate the past based on known data, let alone forecast the future. If a model of your own design can’t back-test correctly, why should it be relied on to forecast?

Yet these models are routinely touted as showing an ‘existential threat to mankind’.

Regards,


Jim Rickards Signature

Jim Rickards,
Strategist, The Daily Reckoning Australia

All advice is general advice and has not taken into account your personal circumstances.

Please seek independent financial advice regarding your own situation, or if in doubt about the suitability of an investment.

Jim Rickards

Jim’s Premium Subscriptions

Publication logo
Jim Rickards’ Strategic Intelligence

Latest Articles

  • OpenAI and Microsoft Divorce?: Why this could be good for you
    By Charlie Ormond

    While breakups are rarely pretty, this one might actually benefit investors willing to look beyond the drama.

  • Three Lithium Stocks in the Buy Zone
    By Murray Dawes

    Lithium stocks jumped this week, so Murray and Callum discuss whether this could be the beginning of the second boom in lithium stocks. They also discuss a fund manager that is recovering and looking cheap

  • Every Australian Investor Has a Stake in Mining
    By James Cooper

    With its deep pool of retirement capital, Australia is on track to become the world’s primary destination for resource markets.

Primary Sidebar

Latest Articles

  • OpenAI and Microsoft Divorce?: Why this could be good for you
  • Three Lithium Stocks in the Buy Zone
  • Every Australian Investor Has a Stake in Mining
  • The next wave of AI winners
  • Could the US People Repudiate the National Debt?

Footer

Fat Tail Daily Logo
YouTube
Facebook
x (formally twitter)
LinkedIn

About

Investment ideas from the edge of the bell curve.

Go beyond conventional investing strategies with unique ideas and actionable opportunities. Our expert editors deliver conviction-led insights to guide your financial journey.

Quick Links

Subscribe

About

FAQ

Terms and Conditions

Financial Services Guide

Privacy Policy

Get in Touch

Contact Us

Email: support@fattail.com.au

Phone: 1300 667 481

All advice is general in nature and has not taken into account your personal circumstances. Please seek independent financial advice regarding your own situation, or if in doubt about the suitability of an investment.

The value of any investment and the income derived from it can go down as well as up. Never invest more than you can afford to lose and keep in mind the ultimate risk is that you can lose whatever you’ve invested. While useful for detecting patterns, the past is not a guide to future performance. Some figures contained in our reports are forecasts and may not be a reliable indicator of future results. Any actual or potential gains in these reports may not include taxes, brokerage commissions, or associated fees.

Fat Tail Logo

Fat Tail Daily is brought to you by the team at Fat Tail Investment Research

Copyright © 2025 Fat Tail Daily | ACN: 117 765 009 / ABN: 33 117 765 009 / ASFL: 323 988