If historical warming was used as a tuning target, reproducing that same warming is calibration—not independent validation.
The paper's press release sold it as a "triple whammy of climate chaos." There is one problem. The ice had already rebounded.
Economic growth is driven by policy, technology, demographics, and shocks. Climate, by comparison, is largely unchanging, and the data cannot isolate its effect cleanly.
The ocean tends to bury and bank heat during La Niña, then brings much of it back to the surface and releases it during El Niño. Calling that release “a fingerprint of cLiMaTe ChAnGe” is not science.
Unlock with Patreon
The modelers keep adjusting everything in their models except the fundamental “greenhouse gas” effect flaw. It’s hard to get those models to cooperate with reality, but they’re certain that CO2 et al. are key drivers. Climate “science” is a modern wonder.
The modelers’ heads are full of greenhouse gas.
Climate models are just programmers software products. The rule regarding software is very simple: “Garbage In, Garbage Out”.
Indeed, Allen, GIGO. They know it’s garbage. When the world climate data doesn’t fit their models, they adjust the models, many times in conjunction with going back decades to alter past data, so to then claim their models “got it right.” spit
I have been reading EV for years. I believe Cap is committed and is an honest broker in dealing with climate matters. >> He knows where to find the daily data and events and to track monthly, seasonal and longer trends while also exposing the bias and machinations of the climate charlatans.
Some are akin to religious zealots. Others must play the game to get published, etc. For some industry groups and politicians, it’s “follow the money” and/or the lust for power. The ones that really set my teeth on edge – and they can be among the many groups, are those with a driving obsession to control others, to set rules and order what people must do or can’t do.
Cap works daily to combat this evil and we appreciate his efforts.