The foundation of the climate scam is computer modeling. I know it started with man-made warming and Al Gore sharing the now-infamous hockey stick, crafted using very selective tree-ring data and a scientific method the author refuses to make public fifty years later, despite the hockey stick never coming to pass.
Computer modeling hopped on the Al Gore money train, embraced by the UN IPCC, and the laundromat was open for business. The models have failed to predict anything, unless by “predict” you mean how bad the modeling would be. The issue is always data, and the atmosphere was always significantly more complex than the grant-fishing model makers would take into account. As long as pliable government was willing to use flawed fearmongering for political and economic gain, the model’s only job was to keep them happy.
Some actual science continued despite institutional objections. Flawed research was good for science if by good you mean people pretending to do science were getting published thanks to funding whose purpose was to produce conclusions whose only purpose was more funding. The actual science, where you challenge the assumptions, especially when what we observe fails to match it, still happened but operated in an underground capacity.
Without the internet and free speech, saved by Elon Musk when he bought Twitter, most of that would have never seen the light of day, let alone a mass of public interest.
In recent years, it has become fashionable to challenge the scientific orthodoxy on climate change (global warming), and while the establishment is still living off the grant for a favorable papers laundromat, you can increasingly find evidence that it was all a fraud from day one. The model never worked because they couldn’t, and no one was incentivized to fix it. And without flawed models, the media doesn’t have the expert evidence it uses to propagandize the public.
If recent generations of fearmongered public school kids can be shown the truth, the whole thing falls apart. So, here’s some more inconvenient truth.
The modelers never got clouds right, and maybe they never wanted to because water vapor, not CO2, is the climate driver they were looking for. Water is essential to life and, depending on whom you ask, a human right. Water vapor results in clouds and rain, without which there is no water.
The challenge for climate models is to account for the most important physical processes, including cloud microphysics and cloud dynamics, and their complex interactions accurately enough to carry climatic predictions tens of years into the future. When contemporary models are given information about Earth’s present condition — the size, shape and topography of the continents; the composition of the atmosphere; the amount of sunlight striking the globe — they create artificial climates that mathematically resemble the real one: their temperatures and winds are accurate to within about 5%, but their clouds and rainfall are only accurate to within about 25-35%.
More! [emphasis mine]
Unfortunately, such a margin of error is much too large for making a reliable forecast about climate changes, such as the global warming will result from increasing abundances of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), predicted to take place in the next 50 to 100 years, is expected to change the radiation balance at the surface by only about 2 percent. Yet according to current climate models, such a small change could raise global mean surface temperatures by between 2-5°C (4-9°F), with potentially dramatic consequences. If a 2 percent change is that important, then a climate model to be useful must be accurate to something like 0.25%. Thus today’s models must be improved by about a hundredfold in accuracy, a very challenging task. To develop a much better understanding of clouds, radiation and precipitation, as well as many other climate processes, we need much better observations.
Follow the link to read. It’s not necessarily dismissive of modeling or the notion of warming, but it harpoons any attempt at science that does not find a way to integrate the complexity of the system represented by clouds and water vapor.
In other words, it’s like Victoria’s Secret trying to convince us that transwomen in lingerie are just as enticing as the real thing. From a distance, you can probably pull it off, but at the granular level, it’s a guy in a bra and panties, no matter how much surgery, drugs, or makeup is involved. And that’s the giveaway.
The climate cult of climate has been using the scientific equivalent of drugs, surgery, clothing, and makeup to make one thing appear like another, but this is science. When it comes time for the autopsy with all the affectations absent, the bones tell us it was a guy, and the climate models are exposed as the fraud they always were.
Intention and perception are mental constructs used to alter reality. This does not make the advertised result the truth.
By the way, it is almost mid-July, and there have been zero hurricanes. NOAA reports one tropical storm in June that formed in the Gulf with top winds of 40 mph. The entire Atlantic basin is dead.
