Legendary Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has harsh critical words for climate scientists and models they rely on. He calls the science of climate modeling a ‘very dangerous game.’
Climate models are often hailed as the bedrock of climate science, the unshakeable foundation upon which policy, regulation and global action are built.(1)
Are these models genuine tools for insight, or dangerously flawed framework that mislead us on climate policy?
Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models, yet these models have gigantic problems. More than 95 percent of digital prognosticators have proven unreliable in predicting trends. Yet, they are used anyhow.(2)
The Wall Street Journal and Powerline report climate models projections of future temperatures have gotten worse over time. As new generations of some improved climate models are produced and modified, the accuracy of their temperature simulations decreases. Each new generation of general circulation fails to track or correspond to a greater degree with measured temperature changes and trends than the previous generation.(3)
Forty-five years have been spent trying to calculate the sensitivity of climate to man-made greenhouse gases. The ‘consensus’ has been unable to narrow the uncertainty in the estimates and, if anything, the climate model uncertainty is now larger than in earlier reports. It is now clear that modern climate models make many critical assumptions that are poorly supported and sometimes conflict with observations says Andy May.(4)
May concludes, “There is abundant evidence that climate has many drivers, and man-made CO2 is only one, and one that may not be that significant. It is way past time that the IPCC quit pushing this man-made climate change idea and go back to the drawing board and develop a new conceptual model that makes sense.”
The fear of anthropogenic global warming has generated a great interest in temperature trends such that even minute changes in the temperature record are scrutinized.
This points to the central role that temperature plays in terrifying populations to accept the appalling lifestyle changes needed to achiever Net Zero in less than 30 years.
Key Point: Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous man-made global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data.(5)
What if the temperature records are wrong, corrupted, or simply made up?
Since the mid-1980s, the 84 Couple Model Intercomparison Project (CMIPS) and 56 (CMIPS) AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation) models have been contradicted by observations in both magnitude and sign. The AMOC has not been declining in response to increases in atmospheric CO2. There is even evidence of trend increases.(6)
Roy Spencer adds, “Warming of the global climate system over the past century has averaged 43 percent less than that produced by computerized climate models used to promote changes in energy policy. Contrary to media reports and environmental organizations’ press releases, global warming offers no justification for carbon- based regulation.”(7)
It has recently been reported that 103 of the 302 weather stations that provide data for both the UK government and academic scientists’ climate forecasts don’t exist or produce actual data. NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 reporting stations that no longer exist.(8)
Meteorologist Anthony Watts reports that 96 percent of NOAA temperature stations are located in urban heat islands, next to exhaust fans and on blistering rooftops.(9)
Alarmingly, this fabricated data has found its way into climate models used by leading institutions worldwide, influencing global organizations in shaping climate policies and driving alarmist narratives.
Australia’s leading climate modeler, Andy Pitman, wants a big new Climate Agency, and to make the case he admits the current models really can’t predict if rivers will rise or fall, if Antarctica will get bigger or smaller, if sea levels will rise much, or El Ninos or La Nina will be more common.(10)
Legendary Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has harsh critical words for climate scientists and models they rely on. He calls the science of climate modeling a ‘very dangerous game.’ He adds, “You work with a computer model for years, improving the model, in the end you are believing it. It’s very difficult to remain objective.”
Read next: Climate Models Have Problems
Email Us | Reader Friendly | Comments
