These climatet experts don't "take us for fools" - they ARE fools. We've already seen all of this during COVID. No sane, intelligent person would become a "climate researcher" these days.
The moment you see anyone asserting that there is a "scientific consensus", or that "the science is settled" or even using the words "the science" you can be absolutely they have no conception whatsoever about science in any way shape or form.
Sadly, there's plenty of brainwashed, low grade intellects churned out by the 'education' system who do aspire to be 'climate researchers' - and plenty of substandard universities to train them.
It is shocking that he mentions the Pinatubo eruption (because it caused global cooling) but he omits to mention the Hunga Tonga eruption because it caused global warming.
Any honest scientist would surely want to investigate the unprecedented spike of global warming post-Hunga Tonga, but no, he passes it off as just “weird”. Alleged man-made global warming is supposed to happen at a slow but steady rate of about 0.2°C per decade according to the UN IPCC's climate modelling, not 0.9°C in 10 months as seen here in 2023: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ - a factor of about 54 too fast. And it cannot possibly be due to the still-puny El Nino: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/.
He can be sure that his lies of omission will find him out eventually.
Those aren’t real temperature error bars. Those are the hypothetical ones obtained by assuming all the individual measurement processes like thermometers in fields, boat inlet readings, buckets, etc have random errors. This massive assumption only applies to theoretical work. The minute you apply that to the real world, real world validation standards apply. And the temperature data collapses. In reality the tools were never designed to read to sub 0.1 degrees nevermjnd be designed for that signal to noise.
I actually asked the UK government were had they validated and verified the science behind MMGW to be safe to apply to the public. All they did, even after review, was point me at the IPCC reports as if this is adequate. If this was the gold standard then a quick validation exercise would result.
I mean after all, every other science application goes through this process. You’d think it’d be an easy win.
But no. We are dealing with fantasists and they only bring harm with their cultish idiocy.
I even wrote about how this can slip through the cracks.
Very well spotted Jaime! and yes we do need something to smirk about in these grim times.
.
Here in Florida I play a game every year with the agencies that produce hurricane predictions. At least 20 colleges and government agencies publish their 'predicted hurricane paths' and the combined effort is sometimes called a 'spaghetti plot' because of the seemingly random appearance.
.
Ok, the game is, since they all are different plots with different landfall predictions, which one is correct? It's a contest, a game, there should be a winner, or at least a bell curve of good better best.
.
Who has the best computer? The best scientists? The best mathematicians? Some of us will gamble if the algorithms align.
.
I do screen shots each hour of each day as the storm in question draws near as I've discovered their habit of changing their plot as time passes. ( do they peek at the work of the other scientists in the room?) Sad to say, many times none of the plots are able to correctly predict the outcome.
.
They are all wrong. No one wins. Frequently off by days and hundreds of miles.
Scientists like to say their computer predictions, whilst wrong, are often 'skillful'. Try telling that to the people whose homes are flooded and torn apart by the hurricane which was predicted to track further north or south! 2023 projection was wrong and NOT skillful, by their own admission, but that hasn't stopped the global warming zealots claiming it was 'the hottest year ever' because Undeniable Climate Science is like gravity! You really can't make this stuff up anymore.
And don’t forget the farmers who plant crops according to projected forecasts. With inflation, the cost of food is rising, but bad computer models can exacerbate it when farmers are misled and plant crops that don’t make it through the season.
These climatet experts don't "take us for fools" - they ARE fools. We've already seen all of this during COVID. No sane, intelligent person would become a "climate researcher" these days.
The moment you see anyone asserting that there is a "scientific consensus", or that "the science is settled" or even using the words "the science" you can be absolutely they have no conception whatsoever about science in any way shape or form.
Sadly, there's plenty of brainwashed, low grade intellects churned out by the 'education' system who do aspire to be 'climate researchers' - and plenty of substandard universities to train them.
It is shocking that he mentions the Pinatubo eruption (because it caused global cooling) but he omits to mention the Hunga Tonga eruption because it caused global warming.
Any honest scientist would surely want to investigate the unprecedented spike of global warming post-Hunga Tonga, but no, he passes it off as just “weird”. Alleged man-made global warming is supposed to happen at a slow but steady rate of about 0.2°C per decade according to the UN IPCC's climate modelling, not 0.9°C in 10 months as seen here in 2023: https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ - a factor of about 54 too fast. And it cannot possibly be due to the still-puny El Nino: https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/.
He can be sure that his lies of omission will find him out eventually.
Those aren’t real temperature error bars. Those are the hypothetical ones obtained by assuming all the individual measurement processes like thermometers in fields, boat inlet readings, buckets, etc have random errors. This massive assumption only applies to theoretical work. The minute you apply that to the real world, real world validation standards apply. And the temperature data collapses. In reality the tools were never designed to read to sub 0.1 degrees nevermjnd be designed for that signal to noise.
I actually asked the UK government were had they validated and verified the science behind MMGW to be safe to apply to the public. All they did, even after review, was point me at the IPCC reports as if this is adequate. If this was the gold standard then a quick validation exercise would result.
I mean after all, every other science application goes through this process. You’d think it’d be an easy win.
But no. We are dealing with fantasists and they only bring harm with their cultish idiocy.
I even wrote about how this can slip through the cracks.
https://overhead.substack.com/p/beware-of-the-other-santa-clause
Very well spotted Jaime! and yes we do need something to smirk about in these grim times.
.
Here in Florida I play a game every year with the agencies that produce hurricane predictions. At least 20 colleges and government agencies publish their 'predicted hurricane paths' and the combined effort is sometimes called a 'spaghetti plot' because of the seemingly random appearance.
.
Ok, the game is, since they all are different plots with different landfall predictions, which one is correct? It's a contest, a game, there should be a winner, or at least a bell curve of good better best.
.
Who has the best computer? The best scientists? The best mathematicians? Some of us will gamble if the algorithms align.
.
I do screen shots each hour of each day as the storm in question draws near as I've discovered their habit of changing their plot as time passes. ( do they peek at the work of the other scientists in the room?) Sad to say, many times none of the plots are able to correctly predict the outcome.
.
They are all wrong. No one wins. Frequently off by days and hundreds of miles.
.
Old computer joke "GIGA" Garbage In Garbage Out..
.
Scientists like to say their computer predictions, whilst wrong, are often 'skillful'. Try telling that to the people whose homes are flooded and torn apart by the hurricane which was predicted to track further north or south! 2023 projection was wrong and NOT skillful, by their own admission, but that hasn't stopped the global warming zealots claiming it was 'the hottest year ever' because Undeniable Climate Science is like gravity! You really can't make this stuff up anymore.
And don’t forget the farmers who plant crops according to projected forecasts. With inflation, the cost of food is rising, but bad computer models can exacerbate it when farmers are misled and plant crops that don’t make it through the season.