A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is coming true next week

I have indeed. Politically driven sources.

Not those. UAH, several blogs by climatetologists. WUWT, of course.

 

WUWT is not a valid source.

There are multiple reasons.

First, it is one individual blogging hand picked studies that he thinks support his personal opinion. There is NOTHING scientific about that.

Second, there is never any follow-up on those studies to determine how the majority view responds to the studies he posts. So, you have no way of knowing whether there are serious flaws, whether the science is great, and fits in with the majority view, or what.

Plus, those are not the only problems with WUWT as a source of information. One problem is that nobody in science cares. With actual science sites, controversial views get responses and cause debate.

Nobody in science cares what Mr. Watt blogs. He's just not an actual part of climatology in any way other than politics.

 

Here's an idea:

Follow Dr. Curry!

I don't know how active she is anymore, but she actually has been part of climatological science and has argued that Earth's warming and its causes are being overestimated!

Or, find some other source that is actually part of climatological science.

 

The ones Listed are. Blogs of climatologists are by definition in the science. WUWT contains numerous links to those "in climatology", but not politics as are many of your heroes.

 

I gave you two guidelines.

WUWT fails both.

 

Ask me If I care about your "guidelines"? Your "guidelines" are rigid adherence to party line.

 

Similar to IPCC, NOAA, etc.

You need to look closer. there are comments.

And yet prominent climatologists post comments and articles.

Got that backwards.

 

WUWT is DRAMATICALLY different than IPCC, NOAA, etc.

Let's remember that WUWT is ONE individual who blogs stuff he wants to blog.

Beyond that, IPCC and NOAA material gets serious attention by climatologists from all over the world. In fact, what is published concerning climatology by those groups is decided by numerous climatologists as well as those in related fields

Stuff on WUWT doesn't get the attention of any scientists in any field.

 

Said, literally no one ever. Historic is an interesting term when you can barely quantify the results accurately from beyond 50 years ago. So a super small data set is extrapolated to invest the reader with literally no basis in historic fact, including in the idea that the British Isles have never seen 100 degree weather before. Clearly this isn't the case, and history actually indicates that when the Romans were there that the climate in the British Isles was significantly warmer, and is certainly plausible that that included 100F days. But gnash of teeth away, Biden has hundreds of Billions of dollars to spend on climate change and democrats demand that you care about their evil doing and ignore it because, gasp... climate.

Here's what I know. where I live, the past month has been abnormally cool. Meaning, that day on day high temps have been abnormally lower than what is average for around here this time of year. And so, the Brit had a taste of warm weather. Gasp... they don't even know what air conditioning is.... Makes you smile... really. And suddenly, the Brits just figured out that their energy plan might not be capable of supporting the energy consumption of AC in the summer time. So, instead of actually fixing that and simply generating more power to satisfy the need, they cry "climate change".... and make folks go without power at all. Why? Punishment... Evil people want to be comfortable. and the church of the holy warmers doesn't allow comfort. Lest ye all forget the inquisition...

CNN has an interesting reputation these days. Head fake news of the world is one of them. And folks, rightfully, are ignoring them for the hyperbole and BS they spread liberally around the globe these days.

Hope y'all find comfort in the fact that even if you could install central air, your power grid won't be able to support it... or for that matter, all those super expensive EVs that you'll be competing with...

 

Not even close. It has dozens, if not hundreds of contributors and even more that comment on the varison items

Of course - they have to know what they're supposed to say and write to earn the grants that are their lifeblood.

You mean except for those that submit or comment on articles, of course.

Your entire outlook on climate science is a massive hero worship rather than involved thinking and research. You're exactly the kind of follower WEF and its co-conspirators love.

 

You're totally missing the point. What that blogger prints is his personal choice - whether it is comments or any other content.

And, scientists aren't interested in his site enough to comment.

On the other hand, IPCC has major dialogue by serious scientists the world over, all available for the world to see.

Your guess as to how grants are awarded is just plain ridiculous.

 

And you don't think that principle applies to IPCC or NOAA?

Nonsense. Most of the submissions/comments are from scientists

Wrong. Only what they want you to see is publicly available.

I agree, but it's the way it's done.

 

No, it absolutely does not.

WU... is ONE GUY who isn't even a scientist, picking what he thinks supports his personal opinion.

That is clearly not how grants are administered.

For example, grants obviously can not and are not administered based on what the results of a study might be. Good lord. The results come AFTER the study, not before!!

You are STATING that there is a conspiracy of science. But, you provide absolutely NO WAY that could happen.

 

Grants state what it is that is going to be studied.

That is the result - a better understanding of a specific question.

Beyond that, the conspiracy you are trying to support is just plain impossible.

There are scientists working all over the world on the fields of science related to climatology.

Plus, there is no way to coordinate and enforce the results of all the science that is going on in order to form a pattern that would match some political objective.

Suggesting that is happening is just plain nutty.

Thus, it is not surprising that you have presented absolutely zero evidence of that.

 

How many have you written or read?

Yep and they're backed by same or similar donors.

Yeah, there is. Don't fund studies that don't support desired result

Your entire blind worship is evidence.

 

Better yet, who are you and what exactly are your qualifications as an arbiter of truth and holy writ?

 

How do you know what will be "supported" before the study is completed?

Let's say a study is proposed - it will track currents, temperatures and salinity in Atlantic ocean currents in the southern hemisphere.

Tell me how YOU would know that will support your personal conclusions.

 

it's part of the proposal.

Because scientific studies don't work that way. Scientists don't just randomly ask for money to see what they can find. One of the first section is a discussion of the PURPOSE or GOAL of the study. Remember the scientific method:




Simplistically: Suppose I want to prove water flows down hill: Open way is to Imake a hypothesis that water doesn't flow down hill and then design an experiment to disprove that hypothesis.

 

I see no evidence that grants are given based on whether the scientist is working toward verifying climate that change exists.

And, your statements above do not counter that in any way.

Your paragraph starting with "simplicity" doesn't indicate how grants are allocated.

 

Sorry, but it absolutely is.

 

How many grants are given out these days to prove that CO2 doesn't cause climate change?

 

Somewhere between "none" and "are you kidding us?"

 

Weather patterns have always been changing.

Only the non-scientific types believe that the Planet is static and never changes.

 

Wow, conspiracy nutcase here.

Please, tell me where I can pick up my checks then. They owe me for about 40 years worth.