Climate change is easy to prove if you screw the pooch badly enough

When Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth came out, I watched it. I was terrified by the world being described, and since I was still pretty liberal and sort of an environmentalist, I took it all to heart. Over time, as my personal politics shifted, I still had concerns regarding climate change. After all, it is what it is, right? Until I came to look deeper into the issue and the one thing that shattered my belief in the whole concept: The fact that not a single climate model has ever panned out as predicted despite pretty much none of the draconian measures we’re told we need in order to avert disaster ever coming to fruition. Science is supposed to be predictive. If it can’t predict something in its models, then scientists need to back up and figure out what the problem is. Instead, they seemingly just keep doubling down. Yet I was willing to give researchers, on the whole, a pass and figure it was a lack of understanding versus something malicious. I’m not about to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore. But a growing chorus of climate scientists are saying the temperature readings are faulty and that the trillions of dollars pouring in are based on a problem that doesn’t exist. More than 90 percent of NOAA’s temperature monitoring stations have a heat bias, according to Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, author of climate website Watts Up With That, and director of a study that examined NOAA’s climate stations. “And with that large of a number, over 90 percent, the methods that NOAA employs to try to reduce this don’t work because the bias is so overwhelming,” Mr. Watts told The Epoch Times. “The few stations that are left that are not biased because they are, for example, outside of town in a field and are an agricultural research station that’s been around for 100 years ... their data gets completely swamped by the much larger set of biased data. There’s no way you can adjust that out.” … Lt. Col. John Shewchuk, a certified consulting meteorologist, said the problems with temperature readings go beyond heat bias. The retired lieutenant colonel was an advanced weather officer in the Air Force. “After seeing many reports about NOAA’s adjustments to the USHCN [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] temperature data, I decided to download and analyze the data myself,” Lt. Col. Shewchuk told The Epoch Times. “I was able to confirm what others have found. It is obvious that, overall, the past temperatures were cooled while the present temperatures were warmed.” He contends that NOAA and NASA have adjusted historical temperature data in such a way as to make the past appear colder and, by so doing, make the current warming trend more pronounced. Let’s be clear here, the idea of taking measurements in heat islands is freshman year stuff. There’s absolutely no way they’re unaware the effect that’s having on their readings, even as most of their instruments are subject to heat bias. In other words, I can’t accept this is a good faith error. No, I believe this to be malicious. Climatology isn’t exactly a field of science that would ever be considered sexy. Before all the climate alarmism, research grants were likely few and far between. People weren’t overly worried about the climate because it simply ways. Then scientists started screaming that we were all doomed. The end is nigh, they told us, screaming at the top of their lung and acting just shy of wearing a sandwich board in Times Square. With that came money and prestige. Suddenly, climatologist could get recognition and write bestselling books. They could get grants from everyone and their brother to fund their research. The thing is, they had to keep up the charade. People had to believe that we were going to die if we didn’t do something. Maybe they actually want the draconian measures they suggest, measures that pretty much amount to going back to living in mud huts, but with solar- and wind-created electricity so we won’t need to burn wood to survive. Or something. Either way, I find it very hard to see this and not think that these wankers know what they’re doing is wrong. They claim they’re “adjusting” the data to account for the bias, but that supposes they actually both know how to make a meaningful adjustment and that they have the desire to do it right, even if the data contradicts what they’ve long held to be the case. “But why would they lie?” someone might ask, but the truth is that we’re seeing a lot of evidence of scientists lying in recent years. I’m not about to trust them because their profession has shown itself to be unworthy of trust. So when they’re willfully getting readings overwhelmingly from places that are going to read as higher than they would otherwise, then tell us that they applied a bit of math which they know for a fact is perfect, and the world really is getting hotter, I’m not going to believe it. Especially when they could have just used instruments in a variety of locations. Especially as we’re told ground thermometers are better than satellite data that runs contrary to their math-adjusted nonsense. Seriously, read the whole piece linked above and then try to tell me, honestly, that there’s no reason to be skeptical of how the data is being collected. It’s not just that they don’t really understand the climate as well as they want to claim, it’s that they don’t care to understand it as long as the checks keep coming in. Tilting at Windmills is 100% reader-supported. If you enjoyed this article, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription for 15% off the first year or making a one-time donation here. Your support is greatly appreciated. Tilting At Windmills © 2024 Tom Knighton 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104