Here it is at last: the first real admission from a climate scientist that they got it badly wrong about 2023, how the year greatly exceeded predictions in terms of warmth and why that might be the case.
I meant a link back to your site. I found the link to the interview ok and am listening to him speak. Very brilliant post on your part by the way, I know of Jessica Rose but I prefer your style and interests more than hers and would not have clicked on the interview link on her substack... You rank higher in my esteem as a trusted source.
Ah, yes, the crosspost. Sorry. Personally, I think Jessica's brilliant and funny and her biomedical knowledge is astounding. But thank you for your vote of confidence in myself. Different styles, different focus areas, but the same general message - stop the globalists before they end up killing us all!
Yes, stop them if we can. It appeared to me back in 2020 and more so in 2021 that the cake was already baked and just needed to be served. (where did that mangled metaphor originate?) They conceived a plan, organized the players and the ingredients, baked the cake and served it to 70% of the world's population. What? Why?
.
Normalcy bias precludes one from believing the outliers. We discard those normally.
.
I had a great deal of difficulty understanding how most of the 192 countries around the world reacted almost simultaneously to the COVID event. So many languages, so many cultures, religions, cults, races and yet there they were. All together. Marching to the beat of an unseen drum, keeping step, dancing in the street like a college marching band in the London New Years' Parade.
.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Paranoia? The verdict has not returned.
I've added an update as Zeke Hausfather is now tweeting about the anomalous 2023. He says the only other year where the prediction was so far out was 1992, due to the Pinatubo volcanic eruption . . . . . .
Thank you for the link to the Interview with Bret Weinstein by Tucker Carlson. Can you create a link back to your site so as to enable comments? You should get credit for bringing this to our attention. On that note, I’ve never heard Bret Weinstein speak before, and half way thru this podcast I marvel at his ability to speak on this subject without notes. He is checking all the boxes and in a calm quite manner making a convincing case. Those of us who just said “No, Fuck No!, are you crazy?” to the jab remember those dark days when our friends and family lined up outside in the rain to receive their injection of ‘Fauci juice’. Those were angry sad days.
You've got me confused Kerry. What link? Where? I certainly have been highlighting and sharing that interview this morning though, which is both brilliant and profoundly disturbing.
“Climate Scientists” all remind me of the Hindu Parable about the Six Blind Men and the Elephant. “They are all partly right, but also all entirely wrong.” Sahil Bloom
I am glad someone is keeping an eye on the narrative. I am sure it is hard work, and lots of it, so, thank you.
I think there is more to it than him being more honest. If he were to try to bring in the "climate change" Swiss army knife trope, it would immediately put the CO2 "major" contribution to everything weather into question. The CO2 just hasn't changed enough and the lag would not allow it as an explanation either.
I think he did the "right" thing and obscure his Hunga-Tonga comment within an off-hand shipping aerosol comment.
The failure of citing the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haapai volcanic effect on GAST data is just another -- and recent -- indication of the climate alarmists failure to factor in the essentials. Now, that's not to say we should ever depend upon GAST data to run models given the fact that climate models are inherently wrong. Even the ridiculously biased folks at Wiki have to agree about George Box's thoughts on models in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
Actually if it turns out to be the reduction in shipping aerosols then it directly is because of climate change as aerosols have been masking the substantial increases in temperature that otherwise would have occurred because of the increase in the recorded earth energy imbalance.
That's why it probably isn't shipping aerosols because this would mean that the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is even higher than the models themselves suggest, which seems unlikely.
Jim Hansen’s new paper Warming in the Pipeline makes the case that climate sensitivity has been underestimated and has been a proponent that aerosols cooling effects have been underestimated.
I thought the science was “settled”. How is it possible, in “settled” science, to make such an egregiously wrong prediction?
We'd better ask Zoe at Just Stop Oil. She's the expert on the settled science.
I meant a link back to your site. I found the link to the interview ok and am listening to him speak. Very brilliant post on your part by the way, I know of Jessica Rose but I prefer your style and interests more than hers and would not have clicked on the interview link on her substack... You rank higher in my esteem as a trusted source.
Ah, yes, the crosspost. Sorry. Personally, I think Jessica's brilliant and funny and her biomedical knowledge is astounding. But thank you for your vote of confidence in myself. Different styles, different focus areas, but the same general message - stop the globalists before they end up killing us all!
Yes, stop them if we can. It appeared to me back in 2020 and more so in 2021 that the cake was already baked and just needed to be served. (where did that mangled metaphor originate?) They conceived a plan, organized the players and the ingredients, baked the cake and served it to 70% of the world's population. What? Why?
.
Normalcy bias precludes one from believing the outliers. We discard those normally.
.
I had a great deal of difficulty understanding how most of the 192 countries around the world reacted almost simultaneously to the COVID event. So many languages, so many cultures, religions, cults, races and yet there they were. All together. Marching to the beat of an unseen drum, keeping step, dancing in the street like a college marching band in the London New Years' Parade.
.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Paranoia? The verdict has not returned.
Certainly not a coincidence. Close coordination at the very least, and well planned and prepared coordination at that.
I've added an update as Zeke Hausfather is now tweeting about the anomalous 2023. He says the only other year where the prediction was so far out was 1992, due to the Pinatubo volcanic eruption . . . . . .
Thank you for the link to the Interview with Bret Weinstein by Tucker Carlson. Can you create a link back to your site so as to enable comments? You should get credit for bringing this to our attention. On that note, I’ve never heard Bret Weinstein speak before, and half way thru this podcast I marvel at his ability to speak on this subject without notes. He is checking all the boxes and in a calm quite manner making a convincing case. Those of us who just said “No, Fuck No!, are you crazy?” to the jab remember those dark days when our friends and family lined up outside in the rain to receive their injection of ‘Fauci juice’. Those were angry sad days.
You've got me confused Kerry. What link? Where? I certainly have been highlighting and sharing that interview this morning though, which is both brilliant and profoundly disturbing.
“Climate Scientists” all remind me of the Hindu Parable about the Six Blind Men and the Elephant. “They are all partly right, but also all entirely wrong.” Sahil Bloom
Haha maybe normie science is starting to catch up with you!
Well done Jaime
I note Dr. Spencer's temperature estimate for 2023 seems to differ significantly to Schmidt's.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
I consider the big spike in the latter portion of 2023 to be an artefact of the Hunga Tonga eruption.
When the water vapour condenses the temperature will rebound to below the pre-eruption level.
I am glad someone is keeping an eye on the narrative. I am sure it is hard work, and lots of it, so, thank you.
I think there is more to it than him being more honest. If he were to try to bring in the "climate change" Swiss army knife trope, it would immediately put the CO2 "major" contribution to everything weather into question. The CO2 just hasn't changed enough and the lag would not allow it as an explanation either.
I think he did the "right" thing and obscure his Hunga-Tonga comment within an off-hand shipping aerosol comment.
The failure of citing the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haapai volcanic effect on GAST data is just another -- and recent -- indication of the climate alarmists failure to factor in the essentials. Now, that's not to say we should ever depend upon GAST data to run models given the fact that climate models are inherently wrong. Even the ridiculously biased folks at Wiki have to agree about George Box's thoughts on models in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
Hehehe, and excessive elaboration can’t change it.
Actually if it turns out to be the reduction in shipping aerosols then it directly is because of climate change as aerosols have been masking the substantial increases in temperature that otherwise would have occurred because of the increase in the recorded earth energy imbalance.
That's why it probably isn't shipping aerosols because this would mean that the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is even higher than the models themselves suggest, which seems unlikely.
Jim Hansen’s new paper Warming in the Pipeline makes the case that climate sensitivity has been underestimated and has been a proponent that aerosols cooling effects have been underestimated.
I know, and that paper and its conclusions have been roundly criticised, even by Mann!