Climate activists try to smear & censor Jordan Peterson for climate model claims – But Peterson made accurate scientific claims


By: - Climate DepotJanuary 27, 2022 2:18 PM with 0 comments

Jordan Peterson appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and made scientific valid claims about climate change. The climate activists and their media supporters tried everything to discredit Peterson’s claims.

See; UK Guardian: ‘Word salad of nonsense’: scientists denounce Jordan Peterson’s comments on climate models – By – Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Peterson claimed the climate was too complex to be modeled accurately, which was quickly shot down by scientists … Peterson told Rogan that because the climate was so complex, it couldn’t be accurately modeled. He said: “Another problem that bedevils climate modeling, too, which is that as you stretch out the models across time, the errors increase radically. And so maybe you can predict out a week or three weeks or a month or a year, but the farther out you predict, the more your model is in error. “And that’s a huge problem when you’re trying to model over 100 years because the errors compound just like interest.” Peterson said that if the climate was “about everything” then “your models aren’t right” because they couldn’t include everything. 

CNN also chimed in with the usual attacks on any climate claim that differed from the United Nations or Al Gore.

#

Climate Depot’s Morano comment: “Jordan Peterson gave a fantastic scientific analysis of climate models that even the United Nations IPCC, UN scientists and many top scientists agree with. The UK Guardian smear piece on Jordan claimed “He has no frickin’ idea” about the climate or climate models. The exact opposite is true and verifiable.”

Climate Reality Check: 

UN IPCC’s Third Assessment Report admitted:The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”

 

For a climate reality check, read Chapter 3 excerpt of Green Fraud: ‘Man-Made Climate Change Is Not a Threat’ – ‘Hundreds of causes & variables influence climate’ not just CO2

The scientific fact is that your heralded “state-of-the-art climate models could “show” any outcome you wish to create. Climate activist Michael Mann admitted in 2017: “Predictions can never be ‘falsifiable’ in the present: we must ultimately wait to see whether they come true.”

Prominent scientists have exposed your climate model con. See: Page 113 of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change: In 2007, top UN IPCC scientist Jim Renwick admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well,” Renwick conceded.

Page 110: Predictions Are Suddenly “Evidence,” Models are Now “Data” – And yet, such is the climate establishment’s attachment to their computer models that they have begun to refer to their predictions as “evidence” and “data.” Scientists affiliated with the federal Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee claimed in 2011, “We find evidence from nine climate models that intensity and duration of cold extremes may occasionally, or in some cases quite often, persist at end-of-20th-century levels late into the 21st century in many regions.” And Seth Wenger of the University of Georgia has said that “the most dire climate models show temperatures in Idaho rising an average of 9 degrees in 70 years. That would make Boise pretty unpleasant. None of us want to believe that.” But Wenger added, “I have to set aside my feelings and use the best data.”

Models Do Not Equal Evidence: The assertion that models are now “evidence” raised the ire of former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. “The use of the term ‘evidence’ with respect to climate models illustrates that this study is incorrectly assuming that models can be used to test how the real world behaves,” Pielke explained.

Page 114: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Vincent Gray of New Zealand, the author of more than one hundred scientific publications and an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, declared in that IPCC claims were “dangerous unscientific nonsense” because, “All the [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,’” Gray noted.

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed software engineers. “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society,” Tennekes wrote in 2007.

The late atmospheric scientist Augie Auer ridiculed climate model predictions, comparing them to video games: “Most of these climate predictions or models, they are about a half a step ahead of PlayStation 3. They’re really not justified in what they are saying. Many of the assumptions going into [the models] are simply not right.” And atmospheric physicist James Peden compared the climate models to children’s toys, calling them “computerized tinker toys with which one can construct any outcome he chooses.”

If It’s Not a Prediction, It Can’t Turn Out to Be Wrong

Kevin Trenberth, another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, referred to climate models’ projections as “storylines.” As he wrote on the blog of the journal Nature on June 4, 20017, “In fact, there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self-consistent ‘story lines’ that then provide decision-makers with information about which paths might be more desirable.” Trenberth also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings: “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”

#

Flawed Models Are Throwing Off Climate Forecasts Of Rain And Storms – Efforts to attribute specific weather events to ‘global warming’ are rife with errors

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: The art and science of climate model tuning

Fmr. IPCC & MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen In Germany Extreme Weather Claims ‘Pure Propaganda’ – Portrays IPCC Climate Models As Fudged… – Lindzen ridicules the UN climate view its models, the ones near the center of the range and the bad outlier ones: ‘In the democratic processes of the UN, all models are equal.’

The 2018 federal National Climate Assessment warned of dire consequences from man-made global warming. But even a cursory reading of the National Climate Assessment reveals that it was written by environmental activists and overseen by President Obama’s former UN Paris climate pact negotiator, Andrew Light. The National Climate Assessment is a political report masquerading as science. The media hyped a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists. The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups—because it is. Two key authors are longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists, Donald Wuebbles and Katha- rine Hayhoe. The government is paying our National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to come up with an alarming report with a bunch of scary climate computer models. (NAS is almost entirely dependent on federal funding.)1

New Santer Climate Study Claim: 97% Consensus is now 99.99997%! Climatologist debunks: ‘Climate models are programmed to only produce human-caused warming’