The Climate Cult is more than willing to change whatever it must to keep its confidence scam alive. That’s what they mean when they say climate change. They don’t mean temperature; they mean the Climate data and the Climate narrative.
They’ll change anything but the solution and do whatever is required to keep the wealth redistribution/tyranny accelerator laundromat open.
When research peeks over the consensus wall to challenge approved dogma, the Pharisees are quick to discredit it—shills for oil, anti-science, climate deniers. Destroying careers is well within the realm of acceptable behavior as is blocking credential research or pressing experts to alter results. But what if the research comes from an official government agency?
If you control the agency, then its job has been to reinforce the confidence scam. They issue grants that produce the results needed and then base official policy on their rigged research. But not everyone appears to be in on the scam. Norway, not exactly a conservative bastion of political or cultural practice, uses the National Statistical Institute of Norway to generate official statistics. Things upon which the country relies to inform politicians and people. It published a paper titled “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”
I’m sure they went in thinking, well, we’ve got data and records, and everyone’s been on about CO2 and temperature change. Let’s crunch this stuff and then impress everyone with the evidence. The conclusion at which they arrived contradicts the Climate Cult’s approved narrative. Those temperature models used to justify CO2 reduction policy don’t actually justify it
In this paper we have reviewed data on climate and temperatures in the past and ascertained that there have been large (non-stationary) temperature fluctuations resulting from natural causes.
Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the [Global Climate Models] GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.
…[T]he results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.
Remember, this is the government of Norway.
- All four previous interglacial periods are seen to be warmer than the present.”
- warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010).”
- The results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.
Norway just wrecked the consensus. It has warmed more without man, and while man contributes to CO2 in the atmosphere, “it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.” Your models are crap and so is your conclusion.
Are they taking this news seriously? Norway was already ramping up Oil and Gas production. I’d go with yes.
As for everyone else, they’ll ignore it, but this isn’t the only “paper” to reach the surface gasping for air, to challenge the approved orthodoxy. There is a sense of movement that could lift us out of the elite-imposed dark ages of climate science and propel us into a fossil-fueled renaissance.
That’s a stretch, but in any of the many fronts in the war against global Leftism, you have to get your optimism where you can.
Climate Discussion Nexus | Legal Insurrection
