It’s true -- Weather.com stinks. Now this isn’t to say that Weather.com is a poor website. In fact, it’s my go-to spot for weather information.
Nor do I believe that Weather.com’s forecasts are particularly lousy. I actually believe that they are at least as good as anyone else’s forecasts.
What I’m saying is that weather forecasting is painfully inaccurate. Yes, even in this, the Reality-Based Data-Crunching The-World-On-Your-iPhone Era in which all things are possible.*
*(Yes, all things really are possible, even though we cannot predict the market, we can’t predict employment levels, the grownups of the Free World cannot convince terrorists of the world to join us for Poker Night, hyperbaric-chamber owner Michael Jackson still died, and families still aren’t driving around in hovercars. But, honest, put enough Ivy League minds together and we can fix the whole universe.)
So Monday, I brought my bike to work, so that I could ride home at night and then back to work in the morning. One look at Weather.com cured me of that idea, though. As this screenshot shows, at 4:19 pm, they predicted that it would be raining by 5 pm and then on through the night. They also predicted it would be raining in the morning. So there goes the bike commuting!
But it didn’t happen. None of it! In fact, I missed out on some of the best cycling weather of the summer.
And this is what happens to me repeatedly. Weather.com –- an excellent website and top flight weather prediction service -– is constantly wrong in answering the question “Is it going to rain?” (That I’m stupid enough to keep basing my decisions upon their predictions is another matter…)
This is simply what the best computer modeling has to offer: lousy prediction of weather events, even, in my case, less than an hour beforehand. The interesting thing is that –- because there is so much weather data at the daily/hourly level *and* because models are predicting events which have observably occurred before –- computer modeling of daily/hourly weather is about as accurate as current modeling methods can possibly allow.
Which is to say that weather is not very predictable.
And yet we are willing to sacrifice our economy, in some of the worst economic conditions of the past hundred years, because of claims that global warming is established science, based upon -– yep -– computers. It is not. Its predictability is far, far less than the best daily weather prediction models (which is to put it kindly, as I’ve explained before).
And, yet, despite all of this, the House has already passed the brutal Waxman-Markley bill –- without a single congressman or congresswoman having had an opportunity to actually read it. How could this be? That the Gaia Worship set was going to demand government action on “global warming” was a given. Ditto Big Green -– the alternative energy companies, Greenpeacers, green journos, etc.
I can deal with all of that. But what I find outrageous is that –- as more and more scientists cast doubt upon anthropogenic global warming as scientific fact -– the Christian leaders who identified themselves with the Evangelical Climate Initiative have done nothing to admit that they might have been wrong. ECI signers –- many of whom are influential thought leaders in the Church -– insisted upon cap-and-trade specifically. If we proceed with Waxman-Markley, they will bear a fair share of the blame.