Real Time Climate Blame

Atmospheric modelers can’t accurately predict the weather three days from now, but after the fact they can attribute climate blame to whatever the weather actually turned out to be. They are using “methods recently published in a peer-reviewed journal.”

Real-time extreme weather attribution is here

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Cold is hot

Blaming Donald Trump for bad weather is widely accepted among those who “believe in science.”

Opinion | Yes, you can blame President Trump for Hurricane Florence – The Washington Post

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Real Time Climate Blame

  1. Scott Allen says:

    After reading the Guardian article, I looked up one Tweet they swore as the truth.
    “Remember when James Inhofe threw a snowball in the Senate to make a point and then it snowed only one more time in DC for the next five years.”

    Well I did a small bit research/fact check and found that it did snow every year after Inhofe snowball, yet people still believe that misinformation, more importantly that twitter site has not been removed for misinformation nor did the Guardian fact check it.

  2. Dave Burton says:

    Typo correction:

    “they can attribute climate blame to whatever the weather actually turned out to be”

    should be:

    “they can attribute to climate change whatever the weather actually turned out to be”


    “they can blame climate for whatever the weather actually turned out to be”

  3. Petit_Barde says:

    “Attribution experts”

    A new kind of clowns who blame anything and its opposite on AGW, unjabbed, Trump, unmasked, Putine, … and all those who do not drink the Kool-Aid.

  4. Citation needed. I am curious to know what method is used – Tarot cards? Ouija board?, Numerology? reading tea leaves? Palmistry? Crystal ball? This is pure mumbo-jumbo aimed at the faithful.

    • arn says:

      They have developed a model that is neither blaming Putin nor Trump.

      By woke standards that’s the maximum of scientific integrity that can exist.

  5. Gamecock says:

    Of course! When you don’t define ‘climate change,’ you can attribute anything – and everything – to it.

    “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” – Voltaire

  6. Ulric Lyons says:

    Rising CO2 forcing “setting off” heatwaves is magical thinking, it’s fake science distracting from useful inquiries into how the Sun discretely drives heat and cold extremes during any climate regime. Urban heat islands exacerbate heatwaves maybe 20-40 times more than from increasing CO2 from 280 to 420 ppm.

  7. David G says:

    New consequences of so-called human-induced climate change are popping up every day now, simply because it still creates good “copy” in newspapers and other media. It is becoming a parody of itself, stepping to new heights of the ridiculous. But, with all this nonsense we are seeing increasing numbers of those who should know better “towing the line” to preserve their careers. When will common sense and logic prevail? The claim “97% of scientists agree” on dangerous climate change due to man made CO2 continues to be parroted, in spite of it being a fake construct.
    Having been in science myself for 35 years, and basing my conclusions on empirical data, always open for discussion and debate, I find the whole “Climate Change Science” disaster incredibly frustrating and blame it on poor research of the subject reported in main-stream media. Our young folk are terribly depressed about their futures and blame it on my generation, when we now have, actually, the best times in human history. As for the term “Deniers” in respect of those who question the “science” produced by the institutions and science elites, I have never in my lifetime heard a real Scientist actually utter that slur.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.