Vocal critics have cited perceived flaws in both climate and virus modeling, despite scientific evidence to the contrary
Excerpt from this story from Scientific American:
A vocal set of conservative critics have increased their attacks recently on the data modeling behind the novel coronavirus response, and they claim—despite scientific evidence to the contrary—that the flaws also prove the limits of climate change forecasts.
The group, which includes federal lawmakers, climate science deniers and conservative pundits with close White House connections, has even called for congressional hearings into the coronavirus modeling.
That’s in spite of assurances from public health officials that better-than-expected U.S. death estimates for COVID-19 are because millions of Americans responded to pleas for social distancing. The most-used model now forecasts 60,000 U.S. deaths rather than 100,000 or more.
Last week, House Republicans on the Oversight and Reform Committee requested hearings into the models used by the government to craft the coronavirus response. The lead signatory on a letter demanding those hearings was Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who previously has called for a “vigorous assessment” of climate science. The group, which includes a number of conservative climate critics, said it wants to probe the “assumptions behind these models.”
Health experts say the models worked the way they were supposed to—by providing a glimpse into a dire future that was partially averted because of collective action.
In other words, a massive societal transformation based on the modeling of future conditions helped stave off a catastrophe and saved American lives, said Aaron Bernstein, interim director of Harvard University’s Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment.
That’s something climate modelers have long argued. Without scientific models, lawmakers and the White House would be throwing darts to guess future conditions, Bernstein said.
