Proof ‘Climate Change’ is a Hoax:
Climate Models are Engineered with ‘Dangerous’ CO2 Warming Conclusions Built Right into the Code
By JD Heyes
Posted on 07/12/2023
-More proof that the “scientific community” is filled with more left-wing activists than actual scientists when it comes to hyperventilating about global warming and “climate change” has been found.
In November 2021, Gavin Schmidt, one of the primary programmers of the NASA climate model, stated in the Spectator that the model’s track record dating back to the 1970s “shows they have skillfully predicted the trends of the past decades.”
However, after the initial laughter subsided, an expert analysis of NASA’s GISS Model E, comprising approximately 441,668 lines of FORTRAN code from around 1983, emerged.
Criticisms have surfaced regarding features such as water that doesn’t freeze and “negative” cloud cover, leading some to question the claim that the model is truly “physics-based.” This analogy draws parallels to how Hollywood producers describe a movie as being “based on a true story,” notes the Daily Sceptic.
Willis Eschenbach, a seasoned computer programmer, has conducted a comprehensive analysis published by Net Zero Watch (NZW) titled “Climate Models and Climate Muddles.” NZW’s Andrew Montford discussed Eschenbach’s paper in a recent edition of the Daily Sceptic, highlighting the central role of climate models in the global warming concern and their association with the collective Net Zero project’s weather-related warnings.
Montford posed a critical question: What if these climate models were fundamentally flawed? Worrisomely, Eschenbach’s research reveals that “this is indeed the case,” indicating significant issues with the accuracy and reliability of these models.
Eschenbach contends that the existing set of computer climate models is woefully inadequate for making informed public policy decisions. He argues that one only needs to examine the extensive track record of inaccurate, unsuccessful, and flawed predictions these models have generated to verify this claim. Eschenbach advises against paying undue attention to these models.
“Their main use is to add false legitimacy to the unrealistic fears of the programmer,” he said, pointing out that if a model is developed based on the assumption that carbon dioxide regulates temperature, it is not surprising that the outcomes will align accordingly.
The outlet adds:
According to Eschenbach, climate models have a hard time replicating the amazing stability of the climate system. They are ‘iterative’ models, meaning the output of one timestep is used as the input for the next. As a result any errors are carried over, making it easy for models to spiral the Earth into fire and snowballs. NASA gets around polar water refusing to freeze and ‘negative’ amounts of cloud forming (what do minus-two clouds look like?) during model runs by replacing bad values with corresponding maximum or minimum values.
“Science at its finest,” comments Eschenbach. He notes that he is not picking on just NASA. The same issues, to a greater or lesser extent, exist within all complex iterative models. “I’m simply pointing out that these are not ‘physics-based’ – they are propped up and fenced in to keep them from crashing,” he observes.
Climate models and predictions “started to go haywire 25 years ago, just as the global warming fright started to gain political traction,” the outlet notes.
Gavin Schmidt, a former ‘fact checker’ for the Daily Sceptic, mentioned in his Spectator article that the majority of outcomes rely on the general trend rather than the specific intricacies of any particular model. Interestingly, the aforementioned data appears to support Eschenbach’s perspective that computer models merely serve to “make visible and glorify the understandings and, more importantly, the misunderstandings of the programmers,” he noted.
The argument against relying on computer models to support an extreme global de-industrialization campaign is strengthening with each passing day. The most recent example of this unsubstantiated claim, propagated by various media outlets including the BBC, is the assertion that the world’s hottest day temperature record was broken three times in the past week.
Climate journalist Paul Homewood astutely pointed out that the notion of global temperatures surging by 0.22°C in a mere three days is physically implausible. The entire propaganda campaign is built upon computer modeling, which may not come as a surprise to those who have familiarized themselves with Eschenbach’s meticulous research.
