Pirate's Cove

The Cult of Climastrology has not succeeded in implementing their political agenda in full despite 30 years of spreading awareness and using things like government grants to get scientists to ape the beliefs of the CoC. Now, they are looking to redefine what climate means. A simple explanation is that it is the long term averages of weather. What is the long term? That’s where they are injecting more politics, as Dr. David Whitehouse points out (via Anthony Watts)

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS, IPCC SECRETLY REDEFINES ‘CLIMATE’

The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was introduced at the 1934 Wiesbaden conference of the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO’s precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 – 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate. It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.

For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.

There are some obvious problems with this hidden change of goalposts. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years. However, never let it be said that the absence of data is a problem for inventive climate scientists.

Global warming is now defined by the IPCC as a speculative 30-year global average temperature that is based, on one hand, on the observed global temperature data from the past 15 years and, on the other hand, on assumed global temperatures for the next 15 years. This proposition was put before the recent IPCC meeting at Incheon, in the Republic of Korea and agreed as a reasonable thing to do to better communicate climate trends. Astonishingly, this new IPCC definition mixes real and empirical data with non-existing and speculative data and simply assumes that a short-term 15-year trend won’t change for another 15 years in the future.

However, this new definition of climate and global warming is not only philosophically unsound, it is also open to speculation and manipulation. It is one thing to speculate what the future climate might be; but for the IPCC to define climate based on data that doesn’t yet exist and is based on expectations of what might happen in the future is fraught with danger.

But, that definition, which is also not scientifically sound, is exactly what they want in order to manipulate what is perceived as climate. The average person will have zero idea what is happening, and that 50% of the climate data that’s trotted out is a bunch of mule fritters. Using this new definition, Dr. Whitehouse shows that the real trend of a statistically insignificant rise to .6C (you’ll have to hit the link for the data). When the CoC starts using their projections based on their failed computer models, we could potentially be given higher numbers for the trends. What we’ll get is 15 years of real data (that is adjusted for mumble mumble just trust us) and 15 years of non-existent data.

This might work well for fantasy sports, where you’re picking players based on what they did last year and the sites are extrapolating what they might do this year, but, not for an issue for which hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, paid for by the taxpayers, as well as a rising cost of living and loss of private freedom.

Finally, if the science was so sound, they wouldn’t need to do this. The data would speak for itself. Of course, rising temperatures and such still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation.