Climate Science’s Corruption Backed by Misguided Models – Is It Rising With That?

Imagine the theory of gravity being determined by a partisan vote. Or a group of politicians ruling on the interpretation of modern laws of physics. As weird as those postulates sound, that’s what’s happening in climate science.

Scientific research is mainly carried out in academia, where the truth is said to be established through years of work financially supported by the government or private institutions. Sometimes, the financiers of the study want specific results for their money.

That’s human nature, ulterior motives creep into researchers’ methods and results when funding sources have a known view of scientists when applying for grants and doing research. work in laboratories. A type of determinism arises when donor interests take precedence over time-tested scientific methodologies.

There are many factions of politicians and scientists who have committed themselves to a baseless story that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are leading to apocalyptic Earth warming. With the fervor of religious fanatics and the ruthlessness of power maniacs, a climate-industry consortium is pushing energy policy on the basis of hundreds of glaringly flawed computer models. . More than 95% of these digital prognostications have been proven unreliable in predicting climate trends. However, they are still used no matter what.

In a word, the models are designed to exaggerate the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. As a result, the models overstated future warming. The exaggeration of predicted warming is revealed by retrospectively comparing model results with historical actual temperatures.

One Scientific analysis 2020 revealed that “models over-predict warming in all similarity of target observations are, in most cases, significant, and the mean difference between models and observations is significant.” statistical meaning.”

Scientist Ross McKitrick call out Modeler error exaggerates future temperature rise.

“I understand that climate modeling is extremely difficult, and no one can fault the scientific community for suggesting that this is a difficult problem to solve,” McKitrick wrote. “But we are all living with the consequences of climate modelers stubbornly using generation after generation models that overstate surface and troposphere warming, in addition to running forced scripts is exaggerated.” (Forcing is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere.)

“Back in 2005, in the first report of the new US Climate Change Science Program, (others) pointed to excessive warming in the tropical troposphere as one,” says McKitrick. ‘potentially serious contradiction’. “But instead of fixing it since then, the modelers have made it worse. (Report writers) note that in addition to false warming trends, the deviations have broader implications because ‘atmospheric circulation trends depend on the temperature gradient with respect to latitude.’

Why do researchers continue to use models known to overstate warming? To produce results that support a popular climate-obsessed political position?

It seems so, given the profit motive and lucrative nature of the current peril cycle: Governments give their doomsday stories, scientists and research institutions get funding grants, green corridors secure investments and subsidies for uneconomical and inefficient technologies, and political candidates embrace hysteria in exchange for campaign contributions.

All of this is aided by working people paying excessive taxes and unnecessarily high energy bills. Some work in the fossil fuel industry at the cost of losing their livelihood. The price to pay for the poorest of us – especially in the developing world – could be the loss of lives for those who are poorer and die prematurely.

Some climatologists may be oblivious to the corruption of science. However, others use it to gain money and power. At some point, this facade will collapse because of the lack of reality behind it. However, we have an obligation to do what we can to accelerate the destruction of falsehood if only to honor the sacrifices of others in the name of truth.

In the 16th century, Martin Luther freed millions from the tyranny of a corrupt church by refusing to reveal what he knew to be true. He managed to avoid torture and death by fire for his alleged heretics. Others were not so lucky.

However, our obligation goes deeper than remembering the past. As biographer Eric Metaxas writes: “In the end, what Luther did was not merely to open a door where people were free to rebel against their leaders, but to open them. open a door where God is obligated to take responsibility for themselves.”

Those who realize what’s wrong can’t help but point it out. And so are we.

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; CEO of CO2 Alliance, Arlington, Va.; and author of “The Inconvenient Truth: The Science Al Gore Didn’t Do‘t want you to know.