https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/connecticut-steps-up-to-save-the-planet/

It’s also conceivable that at some point in the coming decades, heavy handed climate change regulations will become inconvenient to the left. Then, we will have always been at war with Eastasia.

Not at all. They have literally already been mostly disproven — in the 1990s, they were saying things would already be direly obvious BY NOW. Yet they continually have to revise (often with serious mods to prior claims to reduce metrics yet despite this, claim the exact same dire consequences despite the reduced metrics).

“The validity of a science lies in its ability to predict.”

On these grounds, alone, AGW fails. They had to change the ephing NAME from the at least vaguely descriptive “AGW” to “Climate Change” — an utterly ambiguous and catch-all term which can be used for virtually any weather phenomenon — Blizzards? Climate Change! Heat Waves? Climate Change! Severe Cold? Climate Change! Drought? Climate Change! Floods? Climate Change!!

Here’s a REAL prediction —
2006: “We have to get use to this [four severe hurricanes in one year]”.
Reality:
Literally THE LONGEST term of no class-three or greater hurricanes striking the eastern seaboard, from Texas to Maine, in recorded history, since about 1820, when the population along the coast was sufficient to record and note a class-three or greater hurricane making landfall. This record had been in place since the civil war era, from about 1860-1869 (IIRC). We managed to go 11 years (IIRC) this time.

This is nontrivial, because hurricanes are a direct byproduct of ocean warming, and before the earth can “warm”, the oceans — a truly enormous heat sink — MUST warm up to supply the cyclones with the energy needed.

And yet this has not happened at all — there has been no significant uptick in the severity of either tornadoes or hurricanes for decades.

Here’s another one for you, which I’ve seen virtually nowhere.

There is a concept called “The Citrus Line”.

The orange tree has a lifespan of about 20y. So, when you plant one, you want to get the full 20y out of it, or you’re losing money. Now, hard freezes kill orange trees. So you want to plant them in zones where there are few, if any, hard freezes in any given 20y period. This is what defines the “Citrus Line”, north of which you don’t tend to find orange groves.

It’s not easy to find, but go looking for a map of the historical locations of the Citrus Line.

Hint: In 1880 it was up in Georgia. I is currently down at or below Orlando, FL.

And yes, this is even observable. I recall, back in the 1970s and 80s, a region along Florida’s Turnpike just north of Orlando, a region of rolling hills called “Howey-in-the-Hills”, that used to be covered with orange groves. I mean, it was horizon to horizon orange groves.

Not any more. I don’t believe there is a single orange grove there any more.

:-/

Prediction. It’s the end-result of the scientific method. You make predictions, and they come true. Over and over and over. And you know you are on the “right” track.

The problem is Hood’s Law, “People’s perception of someone’s guilt or innocence is almost always proportional to their view of the heinousness of the crime, not the likelihood of actual guilt.” That’s why the courts are so meticulous in explaining to juries that they are there to discern the facts, not to judge the defendant. Likewise, people perceive risk on the magnitude of potential harm, rather than on its likelihood. That’s rule #3 of how to be a psychic.

90% of US temp monitoring stations flunk basic scientific siting requirements (rest of the world is worse). The current temps are adjusted based on temps in other areas. It’s a real Rumpelstiltskin algorithm process where they try to take crap numbers and massage them with other crap numbers to produce something they try to pass off as scientific gold.

I’m serious. They know that 90% of their data is wrong. They don’t know which data is wrong or by how much. But they claim that their magic super duper pooper scooper algorithm scientifically turns all the crap into science.

How do we know that climate science is garbage? Because the theory relies on crap data, crap models and studies which are so mindbogglingly stupid, incompetent and corrupt that they should be an embarrassment to junior high science students. And because modern science is thoroughly broken. No one ever checks anyone else’s work. Without any quality control process, no one should trust a word of it. Especially when the main proponents have been caught lying and subverting science repeatedly.

My follow-on thesis here now is how they’ve gone beyond simple language manipulations. Sticking with climate change:

Back in the late 20th century, the IPCC, models and predictions were calculating some dire numbers. They were already talking about “the settled science” but the predicted warming numbers were in the range of 6 to 8 degrees C which would be very scary. Then around 5 or 10 years ago, a new report was actually a little apologetic and quoted a new warming prediction of about 3 degrees C. The settled science had changed, by more than a little. How many media outlets trumpeted that?

Did you hear about the very recent revision? I hadn’t. Maybe because there wasn’t any coverage at all? (Not sure.)

Here is the IPCC chart I posted before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg

I was looking at the relative sizes previously, but this has absolute numbers attached. I added up the two biggies, CO2 and methane, and got 1.4 C of warming. Gee, that seems very small. But wait … that negative sulfur dioxide cooling number is rather large. Add them all up and you obtain: +1.04 deg. C. Seriously!?

That nitrous oxide from farms that Trudeau is so worried about is about +0.09 deg. C globally. Canada’s contribution is probably something like +0.01 deg. or less.

This is very eye opening stuff, to me anyway. But what is the IPCC’s language?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/

At current greenhouse gas emission rates, temperatures could increase by 2 °C (3.6 °F), which the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says is the upper limit to avoid “dangerous” levels, by 2050.[10]

[10]
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-when-might-the-world-exceed-1-5c-and-2c-of-global-warming/

So instead of predicting future temperatures with the current atmosphere, they are predicting future atmospheres and then conjecturing the temperature effects of that. That is, forget about global temperature models, look at how bad the emissions are! Misdirection. Look at how badly we are missing the Paris accords. Trust us; the future is dire if we don’t take all these drastic actions.
_____

Two other quick points. The terrestrial temperature record is real isn’t it? Uhm, not exactly. The old recording stations have heat island and other effects that they correct with some arcane math. Last I heard ten years ago or so, they had “corrected” the record from 1970 on five different occasions. Each new correction lowered the 1970 temperature so that the recent temperatures would look warmer relatively speaking. This is not a language manipulation, but science and data fraud.

NOAA also measures near surface seawater temperature. They have an old system that uses their boats and has significant systematic errors associated with engine heat that is dumped into the seawater. They also have a new system of temperature measurement buoys that have effectively no systematic error.

In the last two years of the Obama admin., NOAA released a report about the dire increase in seawater temperatures. Unfortunately, their chief scientist responsible for data integrity had retired the year before and he blew the whistle on that report. Turns out, they had interpreted the low quality uncorrected boat data as the high quality data, and then took the high quality buoy data and fudged it to match up with the boat data. More data fraud.

All of this ties in with Bauxite’s notion of “policy debates occur[ing] in the realm of abstract theory.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwvPbqmQh_o