>>509464237Iโll make it easy for you. Iโll be the climate โscientist.โ
The first thing I do is โadjustโ the historical temperature record to make it look more stable than it really is. I iron down the temps in the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period to hide how the temps were comparable to or warmer than current temps.
Next, I graft the satellite temperature data onto the historical measured data which used ground based thermometers - without making the adjustments necessary to make sure theyโre showing the same thing. Why? Because the satellite data reads higher. That makes it look like there is a sudden increase starting in the 70s.
Then I keep adjusting the satellite data to fix โmistakes.โ Of course 95% of those adjustments only go up, not down.
Then I graft projections from my global climate model program onto the end of the satellite data to show the Super Scary increase in temperature thatโs going to happen if the heathens donโt mend their ways.
I do not tell anyone that my model canโt hindcast. I do not tell anyone what the error levels in the model are. I do not tell anyone that the curve is actually the sum of dozens of model runs and that makes the error levels even worse. I do not tell anyone that none of the things that my models predict like a hot spot in the troposphere have EVER occurred. I certainly donโt tell anyone that I donโt know what the true values of half the variables in my model are - to the point where I donโt even know if a lot of them are supposed to be positive or negative.
Nor do I tell anyone that the entire concept of a climate tipping point is something I pulled straight out of my ass and I have absolutely no mathematical theory that predicts it. But itโs necessary for my doomsday scenario so itโs there.
I also donโt tell anyone that the greenhouse effect from CO2 is logarithmic, not exponential or even linear, so my theory cannot physically even work.