Climate Alarmism & Pseudoscience Is Brainwashing Everyone

By | October 4, 2021

The climate alarmists conspiracy to globalize and control all climate discussion is heating up as pseudo-scientists claim to be able to see the future 80 years in advance.  Only an idiot would claim that a model – a hypothesis if you will – is “science”.  Science has to be falsifiable (Karl Popper) and testable. You cannot claim science based upon a speculation which no one can replicate, except with the identical formula in the identical computer.

The various claims are so fatuous as to be laughable but the public swallows it whole and in the process terrifies and brainwashes the young into believing they are doomed if oil and gas use is not reduced to zero.  They don’t realize the enormous amount of plastic used by a wind turbine. They don’t realize that the generators are made from copper and metals mined using heavy diesel operated equipment. They don’t realize that these turbines are inefficient, producing electricity for only a nominal period of time. This morning, for instance, the breeze here is almost dead calm. Zero electricity. It’s partly cloudy, making solar panels problematic.

We do not have the lithium, copper, nickel, nor cobalt required to build sufficient batteries for the conversion of all cars to electric use, not even if a transition of 20 years or more. And to obtain those minerals means we will need to mine pristine areas into vast wastelands that dwarf that of the open coal mines of the West.

Among the issues is the fact almost all the “climate models” use a method (Optimal Fingerprinting) to create these elegant and unprovable claims of sea level rise, temperature increases, increased storms, etc.  Now comes someone who actually took the time to delve into the math of optimal fingerprinting and discovered it is a badly flawed process, largely leading to meaningless results.  Never mind. It will be used time and again for the next few decades to support wild-eyed conclusions about the imminent doom of the planet.

by Ross McKitrick

One day after the IPCC released the AR6 I published a paper in Climate Dynamics showing that their “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology on which they have long relied for attributing climate change to greenhouse gases is seriously flawed and its results are unreliable and largely meaningless. Some of the errors would be obvious to anyone trained in regression analysis, and the fact that they went unnoticed for 20 years despite the method being so heavily used does not reflect well on climatology as an empirical discipline.

“After the marquee outdoor clothing firm The North Face refused to make logoed jackets for an oil and gas firm, the president of that company thanked them… for basing their entire business on petroleum products. Though perhaps they’re now The Red Face since apparently they had no idea where polyester and other synthetic fibers come from. Perhaps they thought there were Gore-tex trees in the rainforest. Just because you say you love nature doesn’t mean you know anything about it.  “Environmentalists” exemplified by the likes of the North Face are so ignorant of the very materials they wear that they have no business saying anything to anyone about the climate they are so ignorant of. (quoted)”