In this article we see a typical mistake that overemphasizes the effect of co2.

This is always the case. Whenever climate scientists acknowledge an error that error is always 100% of the time they made an error that over-predicted climate change or the effects of climate change.

After a while in any other science everyone would admit something was seriously wrong and that the scientists in it had a huge bias problem. Most of them would be fired or charged with fraud.

Another example:

We look at the historical record of temperatures measured by thermometers over the last 140 years. These records have lots of errors. Without knowing anything you would assume that the errors would on average sometimes produce a warm bias and sometimes a cool bias and that net net if you could reduce all those errors that the average temperature wouldn’t change much.

In fact, they have found 32 “systematic issues” in the thermometer record that have biased the temperature. They have written algorithms to adjust the temperatures to make the temperatures more accurate.

Except that we have seen that 30 of the 32 adjustments increase the warming trend from the past. That’s about a one in a billion chance. How amazing that almost everything they thought of increased the temperature difference over time not the other way. Who knew we were measuring temperature so high in the past?

The result of all this adjustment is that temperatures in some cities are reduced by 6F 120 years ago. The changes have completely eliminating what we thought was a hot period in the 1930s and 40s. Now that period is pretty cold compared to the last 70 years or so.

You might ask how did mercury thermometers not that much different than today record temperatures 6 degrees too hot? Yeah, I don’t know anyway that could be.

That’s amazing because temperature records were set in that period 30s and 40s that still dominate most of the high temperature records today. We also know there were dust bowls in the west.

In fact numerous published peer reviewed papers have come out saying the modifications to the temperature record are not believable and are ridiculous.

If the adjustments are too much then it means the global warming you keep hearing about is less than they tell us which is a big problem because even with the adjustments the temperature is still growing less than half as fast as they predict.

The adjustments are about half the gain over the last 140 years. That’s right the adjustments are about the same magnitude as the warming they claim we’ve had. Hmmm.

From the beginning this science has been shown to be lacking in mathematics and statistics knowledge.

In the first IPCC report a graph was published that was called the “hockey stick.” This graph was shown within a year or so to be completely bogus.

The scientist responsible was Michael Mann. His graph was shown to utilize a special “smoothing algorithm” that when presented with white noise produced a hockey stick.

Further it was discovered after a lot of work and resistance from the climate community that the data behind the chart was actually a combination of some very specially selected tree ring data and for the last 50 years a thermometer record.

The problem with combining data like this is that different data has different errors and different sensitivity. In other words for instance thermometer data is very sensitive but tree ring data wouldn’t show highs or lows as sensitively. So we would expect some flatness combined with more volatility later.

Another thing that was wrong with combining this data was the reason this was done. The tree ring data didn’t show the temperature rising for the last 50 years. In fact it was showing a drop. This was called hiding the decline.

If this data didn’t show the rise in the last 50 years why would we believe it was accurate before? No explanation was offered why there was a decline. In fact Mann didn’t mention the use of 2 data sets.

The IPCC was forced to remove this graph from the original report. That was the first of 3 major scandals in this science.

Every time there is a mistake found it is always that they overestimated the amount of climate change.

Such bias is unacceptable and indicates deception. Science should not tolerate this. It means people can’t trust what they are hearing. This has proven true.

From the beginning they have calculated that the Earth is twice as sensitive to co2 or even 3 times as sensitive than the earth is responding.

We have changed co2 by 30% since 1945. This should have created a temperature change of 1.3C change according to their models. We have actually seen 0.5 to 0.6C.

The latest report produced in just the last year by the climate community team is the same with a 4.1 Karnot sensitivity that implies this same temperature change. Yet it is still 2 to 3 times what we’ve seen in the 75 years using their modified data that enhances climate change.

They haven’t changed the sensitivity because to do so would nullify their catastrophe scenarios. Catastrophe is their whole existence. If there was no catastrophe on the horizon half of them wouldn’t have a job and the other half would he morose wondering what other justice activity they could engage in that they could solve for us.

This science has had problems with basic math in other ways.

The climate scientists estimate the future by averaging the results of 23 models. These models are supported by different sets of scientists around the world.

Amazingly these models are no better than any of the others. Studies show that there is no way to determine which model will produce a better prediction. That is strange and says that none of the models are truly representing the physical characteristics of the atmosphere.

The climate scientists run these 23 models with different initial values and then average all the results to produce a prediction.

If you have a physically accurate model then this method of averaging produces scenarios that makes sense. When the models don’t represent accurate physical things then the averaging makes no sense. It means nothing. Some models could be garbage and move the average one way or another.

This is just math. It isn’t about the science. It’s just saying that the things the climate scientists are doing don’t make mathematical sense.

There are other very basic things that make you suspect the validity of this science and its results.

Studies of the models show that small changes in initial conditions of just 1 trillionth of a degree can cause results that differ by 10s of degrees in different regions. The models are incredibly sensitive. They also exhibit non-physical damping that says these models are not physical. They are purely numerical games not physical.

When they started this science they made a number of assumptions that were blatantly not believable.

They assumed they said that oceans were static. They assumed there was no multi-decadal ocean temperature flows.

We had no information on the ocean temperatures at the time they said this. The oceans are 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Even small changes in temperature could account for all the observed atmosphere change without co2 at all.

They had no mathematical right to ignore the possible influence of the ocean, the sun or the mantle in longer term climate change.

A few years after they told us it was settled and they knew everything they had to admit that ENSO multidecadal flows in the ocean happen which effects world temperate a lot over a 60 year period.

They then did something stupid. They used their limited models with crazy unproven and unlikely assumptions to show that for the period 1975-1998 their models predicted accurately the change.

Of course they did. This is called fitting the curve. They have control of a lot of variables in these models called initial conditions. These are very obscure and unknown parameters that they basically adjust to make the models fit some set of data.

They optimized the models to fit this period and declared success. Any mathematician or scientist in another field would be laughed out of the business. Not so in climate science.

The hallmark of any science is it’s ability to predict. If you are trying to build a building and the formulas only work some of the time then buildings would fall and we would all be less confident in science.

If it is medicine or whatever science it exists if it has the ability to predict. Without prediction it is useless.

Climate science is essentially a failed science because everything they have predicted has failed to happen. There are numerous web sites who just spend time tracking these failures. It’s a joke. Everything they say never happens.

They predicted some glaciers on Montana mountains would be gone in 20 years in 2020. They were so cocky they put signs on the mountains to say these glaciers will he gone by 2020.

This year they are taking the signs down because the glaciers are bigger than in 2000 when they put the signs up.

One climate modeler I talked to predicted that El Niño and La Niña events would disappear. The relentless and unstoppable rise of temperatures from co2 would erase these multidecadal phenomenon that they originally said didn’t exist.

First they said they didn’t exist. When we found they existed they said they would go away. Now a new study comes out since we had a El Niño in 2015 that says that not only will ENSO (el nino and la nino) events would continue but they are enhanced by climate science.

Wow talk about coming full circle. We were told it was all settled. Apparently not.

Frankly it’s normal for science to evolve like this. The fact they said it was settled is the anti-science part. The fact they say anyone who questions their orthodoxy is an evil person is not science.

Nothing about this science is normal.

They don’t use math well.

They are always over predicting.

They are always deriding skeptics and calling to authority a common middle age false science method of argument.

What does this all mean?

It means you should be extremely skeptical of everything these people say.

They are always 100% of the time screaming the end of the world and over predicting how bad things are. You simply can’t believe what they say.

Don’t spend any money based on what they say. They are always wrong and they will change it in 5 years. Just make note of it and if in 5 or10 years anything they say happens then maybe start listening a little.

Don’t give away any of your freedoms or rights. Don’t agree to suffer for the good of the world when they have no idea what will happen. Be skeptical. Listen, remember and see if anything they say actually happens. Don’t let them tell you about 80 years in the future. That is a cop out because they know nobody will be around to question them. They need to be able to predict sooner.

Fund more research. If there is a problem advancing science is likely the only realistic answer anyway to help solve any problems we have.

Make them start to debate and confront the failure of their predictions. Make them get honest. Make them think of alternate answers and listen to skeptics and don’t fire the skeptics. When we find flawed science, punish them like other sciences do.

When confronted ask them to explain why they are so wrong all the time. Ask them why they didn’t predict glacier melt or islands sinking or storm frequency or intensity?

Ask them to explain why forest fire land loss was 5 times higher In the first half of the 20th century compared to now?

Ask them why there was a drought in 1850 that killed 50 million people if droughts are more severe and will such a drought happen again if we spend the $40 trillion they want?

Tell them to have children, stop worrying so much and study math more and how other sciences work.