Forty years ago, Steven Schneider of NCAR explained why climate scientists can’t be trusted to forecast climate or handle climate data.
“As a result of the uncertainty, scientists with a belief usually take the data that supports their belief”
30 Jan 1977, Page 20C – Poughkeepsie Journal
This explains the corruption of the temperature record by climate scientists. They are altering data to match their theory.
And when asked about their extreme data tampering, NOAA simply claims they aren’t doing it.
The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record, one of the world’s most comprehensive, accurate and trusted data sets. This record has been constructed through many innovative methods to test the robustness of the climate data record developed and made openly available for all to inspect by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Numerous peer-reviewed studies conclusively show that US and global temperatures have risen and continue to rise. There is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable
- Brady Phillips NOAA January 10, 2017
To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects.
By some amazing feat of magic, all of their “peer-reviewed” adjustments (which they say they aren’t doing) exactly match the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And when someone actually inspects their adjustments and shows how corrupt they are, they deny the observations.
It is essential that control of the temperature record be taken away from climate scientists. They simply can’t be trusted with it.
“There’s little ability to predict climate”???
When the El Nino started – I knew climate would get warmer.
When it ended – I knew it would get cooler.
Back in 2009/10 I said something to the effect that all climate could be explained by natural variation – which meant the best estimate was that it would change, but no one knew in what way – hence our best estimate would be an average of no change. Which is what we got!!
So, I would have to disagree, because whilst not exactly world shattering, I’ve demonstrated it is possible to predict the climate (and I’ve a far better record at it than the alarmists).
Now if you could tell us right now the time, amplitude, and duration of the next El Nido, then I would say your forecasting climate.
B I N G O !
The climate models don’t predict El Niño and La Niña activity so why should we believe they can predict anything else?
In the late ’80s the climate modelers observed a rise in temperature and tuned their models to show a warming trend for the next 110 years. They did it for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks, “Because that’s where the money is.”
They did it for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks, “Because that’s where the money is.”
Of course Schneider eventually realized that making up scary bs that has no basis in reality is even easier than fudging the data:
So we constantly get this kind of pure hogwash:
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
“European cities will be plunged beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020.” -Paul Harris, UK Ecojournalist, 2004
“We don’t deserve this planet. There are (many) days when I think it would be better off without us. … How am I supposed to do my job — literally to chronicle planetary suicide — w/o experiencing deep existential despair myself? Impossible. … I don’t have an answer for where to go from here. That’s why I’m in counseling. But part of the answer is: don’t be afraid to talk.”
—meteorologist and climate alarmist Eric Holthaus
The more despair they feel from their irrational belief in the non-event that is globalwarming / climatechange / climatewhatever….
The more I smile and chuckle :-)
For some reason Schneider changed his tune and became a darling of the Left twenty years later.
His mathematical “physics” were extremely weak, nothing like that would be accepted by any graduate school in the sciences 30 years ago. Things changed a lot for the worse with the advent of the AGW craze – graduate departments have been dumbed down horribly