Joe Bastardi argues that loud claims of a climate about to spin out of control are out of tune with various actual observations.
I have long advocated that climatologists take a course on long-range forecasting so they can better understand the inherent errors in trying to predict the weather or climate, says Joe Bastardi at Patriot Post.
In the debate over the fate of the planet, where one side is always pushing hysteria, the weather is plainly not cooperating with the missive.
Forecasters take climatology classes and are now being taught the one-sided climate narrative, but in general, climatologists do not have to learn how to forecast.
If they did, they would have to confront errors. I have had to confront mine, the latest example being this past winter’s botched forecast for the Southeast.
Because climatologists are not exposed to forecast verification, it has led to a bold initiative that simply pushes an issue because no one will question it.
From the evidence I have seen, not only is the cause of warming questionable (there’s no question it’s warming; the question is why it’s warming), but the implied negative impacts are also questionable, because there are factual examples of the opposite happening.
I am not trying to be mean and nasty. That is not my mission. My mission in writing a piece like this is to show what I am looking at and why I question what I am being told. It does me no good to engage in the kind of activity I see out there today with derogatory labeling. In fact, I am trying to go the other way.
The assumption, of course, is that everyone is truly searching for the right answer. But if that is the case, is the missive being pushed not unlike using the fruit of a poisoned tree, wherein the means justify the ends? What if the ends are not at all what they are purported to be?
If a catastrophe that is driving children to sue the government is actually occurring, why are there major metrics opposite of what is being claimed?
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
March 17, 2019 at 06:18AM