July 07, 2026
The Long Climate Con
Timothy Birdnow
Here is a good article from American Thinker yesterday explaining how the media gets their "warmest day on record" claims and how they "prove" it's caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide.
As the old saying goes, it's all done with mirrors. Or in this case with models based on a base model that does not comport with reality.
From the article:
Most people assume these studies compare today's weather with historical observations. In reality, they compare the present world with a hypothetical world that never existed—a computer-generated version of Earth's climate in which industrial carbon dioxide emissions never occurred. The difference between the two simulations is then presented as the human contribution to the event .
Attribution studies typically compare today's climate with a simulated pre-industrial climate to estimate how human emissions altered the probability of a particular event.
That sounds scientific until one asks a simple question: how do we know the model accurately represents a climate that no one has ever observed?
Climate models have long struggled to reproduce observed temperature records accurately, with many projections diverging significantly from other observational datasets [ii]. They have difficulty reproducing important regional climate patterns, and one of their most important tests—hindcasting, or reproducing known historical climate changes—remains problematic. If a model cannot reliably reproduce the past, confidence in its simulation of an imaginary pre-industrial climate should naturally be limited. Yet attribution studies depend precisely upon this capability.
And they fudge the real-world data to prove it.
How, you ask?
First, proxy data often diverges from what they think they know about pre-industrial climate, so they "data smooth" the record. Since data is coming from multiple sources they can decide that higer temperatures found in ice core or tree rings are an aberration and so they throw those out but keep in the lower temperatures. Traditional historical temperatures are then deemed inaccurate and the powers that be - NOAA, NASA's Giss, The Hadley Center in Britain, etc. then revise historical data down, so as to make it appear that our current observable temperatures are higher. It's a cute trick, a kind of three card monty.
The second trick they use is to increase surface data temperature by either citing bad stations (they are situated in some of the craziest places - guaranteed to give bad data) or they simply eliminate stations altogether and ASSUME an average temperature between two much more distant stations. The whole point of a temperature station is to take the guesswork out of it but they have been multiplying the guesswork on the theory that it doesn't matter.
Of course it DOES matter which is why we take the planet's temperature where we do in the first place.
Satellite data has long disagreed with surface stations but is generally dismissed. The main satellite data comes out of the University of Alabama Hunstville (UAH) where NASA satellite data is collated largely by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christie. This data shows only a very modest planetary temperature increase and Roy Spencer's work suggests that increase is tied to land use changes - exactly as Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. insisted for decades (Pielke was at UC Boulder). I spoke to Roy Spencer about Pielke's theory (I had spoken to him a number of times when he used to have his blog) and Spencer laughed "he ALWAYS says it's land use changes!) but then Spencer ran the numbers. Now he agrees. A blacktop is hotter than a pine forest.
At any rate the datasets are corrupted and purposely so to get a warming trend, and they are "smoothed" to reject any evidence that the planet is NOT warming as much as they claim.
The reality is this is well within normal geological variability.
As for rising carbon dioxide, so what? We are in an era of low carbon dioxide and probably need some more. I would add that carbon dioxide generally rises AFTER a warming period and usually between four hundred and eight hundred years. The Medieval Warming Period was in full swing in the Thirteen century.
The article goes on to question if carbon dioxide is a primary driver of climate (I doubt it - Mars is drastically different than Venus despite both having primarily carbon dioxide atmospheres). He also points out that increasingly models are being used in litigation over all sorts of things and that they are probably unreliable.
Of course they are; a model is a representation of reality simplified so it can better be studied and understood. A model complex enough to understand something as complicated as the weather would have to be as complicated as the weather and then there would be no need of a model. So we dumb it down so we can grasp it. But what do we lose in the process? It's "flatter" than reality, far less nuanced.
I remember a story I read once, a science fiction story, that pretty much explained this very problem of relying on computer simulations. In it a guy was a laborer for the government who got mad when a directive came down that he had to haul his tools back to the headquarters every day rather than leave them on the job site. He talked to his boss, then talked to his bosses boss, and so forth and so on until he went to Washington and spoke to the head of the Department of Labor. This guy said "this policy is based on a report I received from the bureau of labor statistics". So the hero began working his way back down the chain, always being pointed to the next guy below. Eventually it turned out the whole thing was based on a computer report and the hero finds an old man who trolled inside the basement of an obscure data center who had taken to altering the computer code when he decided something should be done. It was this guy who saw some shovels left out in the rain and thought it wasteful so he programmed the computer to say it was more cost-effective to take all tools back to the warehouse. The old boy wanted to retire and the hero realized the implications. He volunteered to take this guy's job and essentially become king of the whole world by controlling the data stream to the power brokers.
It's kinda like that; I wonder if the original Gang Green guys who came up with this hadn't read this short story from the Golden Age of Science Fiction.
At any rate this is a very sneaky and underhanded trick used to push the narrative, and that narrative is done for money, power, and to promote societal change on a massive scale.
Don't believe it. It's a magic trick, a con, a swindle and you are the mark.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1141 words, total size 8 kb.
28kb generated in CPU 0.1283, elapsed 0.3869 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.3733 seconds, 184 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.3733 seconds, 184 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
