In September 2023, Princeton University’s Emeritus Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, William Happer, spoke to an audience in Brisbane, Australia about the crusade against carbon dioxide and integrity in climate science.

Professor Happer is one of the world’s leading scientists and climate realists, having made extensive contributions to the debate about climate science. He has played a vital role in ensuring there is integrity in climate science and the community is exposed to information and arguments that many major institutions in our society seek to silence or censor.

The Institute of Public Affairs was proud to host Professor Happer on a tour around Australian where he spoke to audiences in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2nhssPW77I

These scientists may be over-certain about the results that they get from their models.

Virtually everything we do is based upon predictions of the future, from predictions of weather in order to grow crops and livestock, to predictions of travel in order to fly aircraft across mountain ranges and oceans without running out of fuel. We choose bedtimes on predictions of when we will wake up to start the next day. All these predictions are based upon models, even the last one, in which the model is in our heads and based upon perceived previous experiences rather than data collected, collated, processed, and analyzed for accurate prediction skills.

One would think that a species that is so good at making individual models so that we can predict how much we will eat tonight so that we can cook enough but not cook too much for dinner, we would have some ability to create more complex models, and that we would spend a lot of resources correcting the models that are about to suggest how to direct trillions of dollars of resources in order to stop or redirect the Earth’s naturally changing climates. If these models are not skilled at predicting the future, why would anyone be stupid enough to rely upon them to determine the expenditure of so many resources?

One of the disturbing things about these models was their complete failure to predict the temperature “pause” that began late in the 1990s. More disturbing is the people who are tasked with keeping the datasets used for climate analyses and for model generation. When the models failed to predict the “pause,” these people were willing to modify the datasets in order to better match the trends predicted by the models rather than insist that the models be modified in such ways that their future predictions will better match reality.

But most disturbing of all is that the rest of the scientific community failed to call out the fudging of our historical climate datasets. All future climate science has been corrupted by the corruption of these datasets. No future models and no climate predictions at all can ever be trusted, because they are based upon fudged information and must necessarily give phony results.

This is the tragedy of fudged data and of confirmation bias. Reality is secondary to these people, but reality is where the rest of us live our daily lives, and we depend upon real predictions to make sure that we don’t sail into arctic ice flows, try to grow crops when the weather will not be right, or create a society of lives and livelihoods that are dependent upon more electricity than the government allows to be produced. It doesn’t matter whether we produce enough food if the electric trucks cannot deliver it to the hungry population.

Dan: You should read the rules. I do not allow obscenities. Your comment went into moderation because you used one. I have deleted it and approved your comment, but next time I will not do so, and will suspend you for a week.

Why is it people now consider it cool to debase themselves in this way? You sound like an intelligent, civilized person. No need to make yourself look bad for no reason. But you do.

I went through a lit of the original Climategate emails in the early-to-mid 2000s, ind tucked in there was some source code for 1 or 2 of their “models”. I don’t remember even what language they were in, except that it was not one of my primary languages (but easy enough to read).

It was FILLED with what we call “magic numbers”. This essentially means 2 different things, depending on context, and both were ubiquitous. One, less important but indicative, was that they arbitrarily assigned numbers to mean things, and didn’t bother with essentially ANY decent pnemonics or anything else to make their code more readable. That is some sloppy, unprofessional [deleted] right there. Two, at several points they would simply add, subtract, multiply or divide a seemingly random hard coded number into what looked like important calculations. No explanation. Uncommented code.

That was when I formed my opinion that the entire climate enterprise was a scam, and not even a clever one. Every dollar ever spent on it is utterly wasted, if the goal is properly to “fix” the climate. That code looked like its author had less than 2 years of programming behind them, and they were probably handed “adjustments” to plug in without even knowing what they were or why. It looked like a transparent exercise in goal-seeking.

When they make these models open source, as they should have been from day one if this was a real problem that needed solving for the good of mankind, then I may take another look and start pointing the problems out to those yahoo’s. Until then, I am blissfully happy every time a multi-billion-dollar climate boondoggle bill is blocked, and you should be too, and vote accordingly.

Gina Marie Wylie: 1. Roy Spencer, who created that graph, is a long time climate scientist who has also been the principle investigator on at least one important climate satellite (maybe more, I don’t remeber for sure). He knows his stuff, and is also unwavering in his loyalty to truth and data, not agenda or theory.

2. See these posts:

• More evidence of data tampering at NOAA
• The tampering of climate data at NOAA and NASA
• NOAA fudges the numbers to turn a January cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend
• Suspicious climate data manipulation at NASA
• 300 climate scientists demand NOAA explain its global warming climate data

There are many more on this site, but many are old, because by 2019 I had become completely bored with reporting what was obvious, that the government scientists in charge of the global climate data sets were clearly fudging the data to cool older numbers so that the present seemed hotter. And they were doing it without providing any convincing explanation for the changes.

The failure of the models is simply another illustration of the confirmation bias that now dominates climate science. Getting the facts — no matter where they lead — is no longer the goal. The goal is instead shaping the facts to prove the theory of human-caused global warming, even if the facts say it is wrong.

Kenneth P. Green: Thank you for the comment. Note that Sarah Hoyt did not write this essay. I did.

I posted this to InstaPundit’s comments on your post there, but wasn’t sure if you’d see that.

I worked in the semiconductor world for over 25 years where physical modeling has been an invaluable tool to advancing the state of the art. And I can say with assurance that anyone submitting findings with such a shoddy methodology as illustrated here would have been unceremoniously fired for incompetence.

Math and statistics are mature sciences that demand you base precise conclusions on data that is itself precise, and when that is not the case you are compelled to document a rigorous characterization of the computational error so that you can judge the utility of the findings. This is completely absent in the field of climate modeling and these models should have been laughed off the stage decades ago.

For sure China and India understand this with their millions of newly minted engineering graduates each year who have learned how real science is done. And that is why they blithely ignore all the climate mongering and let the Bachelor of Art idiots of the West commit economic suicide based upon their climate horror fiction.

Very sad.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA&pp=ygURIm5vIGNlcnRhaW4gZG9vbSI%3D