CLIMATE HYSTERICS WRONG AGAIN

Powerline ^ | January 2,2020 | BY JOHN HINDERAKER

[Hojczyk]

One of the reasons why people don’t believe lavishly funded and media-hyped climate hysterics is that their predictions have consistently been wrong, over a period of decades. This example, via InstaPundit, dates to last June but is still timely. ZeroHedge reports: Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its “Gone By 2020” Signs.

Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

This photo is from a Glacier visitor display. It says, “Computer models indicate the glaciers will all be gone by the year 2020.”

The alarmists’ computer models have consistently been wrong about global temperatures and pretty much everything else, but the Left still peddles their predictions as though they were the word of God. Being a climate alarmist means never having to say you are sorry for being wrong.

In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate.

Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing – not shrinking – since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

[17th Miss Regt]

This all may be true - but RACISM!!!

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, and... but Trump is the most anti-Constitutional individual ever to occupy the White House.

Ironically, the man they worship, went rogue a number of times.

[sasquatch]

Global warming is true.

It begins at sunrise.

Cooling at sunset.

[Karl Spooner]

King James Bible - Gen 8:22
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

[ThunderSleeps]

Their predictions have been wrong because they aren’t based on science. At best they are based on wild misuse of computer modeling and outright data manipulation. The predictions were never meant as actual predictions, but rather as increasingly alarming claims intended to create an emotional rather than reasoned response.

[Mrs. Don-o]

+1

[_longranger81]

“Honey, who ya gonna b’leeve—me, or yer damn lyin’ eyes?”

[_longranger81]

Well, of course, yeah, I mean, but it’s you know...it’s a warm glacier; it’s...umm...it’s very, ah...—CHANGE-Y! Yeah, it’s wicked CHANGE-Y!!

WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE, WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE, WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

Tick, tock.

[HighSierra5]

Were there any palm trees and alligators in the park?

[roadcat]

(The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

Oops. Not gone by 2020. They grew 25 percent! They need to put up new signs - "Glaciers here forever!". Stupid Global Warners, always wrong.

[fella]

Climate Change began as the Earth was formed when all was darkness and confusion and continues until this day.

[monkeyshine]

It is not science in any way shape or form. It is not a controlled experiment. They cannot control any variables. And the variables they want to correlate cannot be proven as causation. Nor can they prove the causation of the causation of those variables. I recently saw a chart correlating the shift of polar north to climate change. And the theory behind the shift of the north pole has to do with the movement of magma deep under the surface. There exists the possibility that, if there is indeed a trend in warming, it may be do to changes under the earth’s crust. I am sure if earth is warming it correlates to many variables they are not looking for such as cosmic rays, solar activity, the apex between ice ages, cloud formation and more.

But we won’t really know the truth about whether earth is warming because, as you said, they manipulate the data callously and with impunity to get the outcome they want. A lot of that has to do with the fact that nobody is giving grants to prove that the earth is not warming. So all the researchers are seeking to prove the grant givers’ theories (most of which is funded by the taxpayers directly or indirectly. And the politics of science in this regard is not limited to climate research). One recent audit of data input found that some “scientist” struck out a datapoint which just happened to be the hottest day of the year in 1919 because, she said, “the person who recorded the data was not scheduled to work on that day”. Nobody disputed that it was the hottest day on record. And nobody disputed the qualifications of the person who entered the record. They just disputed that it was suppose to be his day off - nevermind that there are dozens of reasons why he could have taken that shift (in particular because it WAS the hottest day ever, or because he traded days, or filled in for someone who had to take the day off etc). They actually went back to the employment files from 100 years ago in the effort to find a reason to censor that specific piece of data. That is how far they will go to manipulate the data. It is completely untrustworthy. (And as I’m sure you know they do all kinds of other shenanigans with the data including moving the placement of thermometers to areas that will be hotter (e.g. near airports, on black tar pavement etc)).

[BunnySlippers]

bookmark

[ThunderSleeps]

I have several objective and subjective problems with the climate alarmists:

• Computer model misuse. I have been involved in science and engineering for nearly 35 years, including 10+ years in large scale computer simulations of complex systems for over a decade. You simply cannot use the models they have in the manner they are and call it predictive. You cannot, stop it, you're embarrassing yourselves in front of real professionals.
• The models they have, even when used appropriately, are demonstrably inadequate. More accurately, they demonstrate that our understanding of the climate and climate systems is inadequate. This is actually a good thing. This is what models are for. You come up with a theory, create a model that embodies the theory, and then see if it accurately reflects reality. The models do not. You cannot feed the models climate data from say the late 1800s through 1950, then use them to predict the climate from 1950 through 1970. If you tweak and tune the models to match, then feed it the data from the 1800s to 1970 and ask it to predict the climate out to 2000 it fails. The takeaway is, the models are not detailed enough, not representative. We lack either (probably both) the knowledge of all the significant interactions as well as the capability to express them with the necessary precision.
• Finally, numerous climate "scientists" have been caught falsifying data, manipulating data, tweaking models and results to "prove" a foregone conclusion. If so-called man-caused climate change were real, they wouldn't need to lie, exaggerate, and spin to prove it.

Add those up, and I just cannot take climate scammers seriously.

[olesigh]

And..........Baby It’s Cold outside.

[jimfree]

Brilliant. Storing this in the same document where I have lily’s astronomical presentation (the sun and specks). I have brought her out with screenname attribution in a few FB posts. Might have occasion to do same with you.

My own background includes strategic defense modeling (maintaining, not writing the models.) These produced a set of probabilities of penetration based on assumptions of size of attack, weapon yield, reaction times and sequences and such. A very, very limited set of variables compared to the servo system that is our climate.

[Right Wing Assault]

In June 2019 they were still hoping the glaciers would hurry up melting away to meet the computer model deadline. Oh, well. Maybe the next computer model will be right. Or maybe the one after that one. Or...

[eyeamok]

But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate.

They should be Required to wear those signs on their backs and have them Publicly Displayed at their Homes for the Rest of their Career