Official weather forecasting hasn’t improved since it began and is of insufficient accuracy to be useful. Official climate forecasts produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are wrong, useless and dangerous. Weather and climate has been totally politicized through government involvement so it’s time to eliminate them in forecasting and research and reduce their role to data collection. Neither weather nor climate forecasts have improved over the centuries. Robin Page, farmer/author in his book Weather Forecasting: The Country Way wrote, “Yet it is strange to record that as the weather forecasting service has grown in size and expense, so it’s predictions seem to have become more inaccurate.” It isn’t strange but part of the deception government meteorologists and climatologists practice in leading the public to believe they’re improving because of bigger computers.
IPCC driving policy on energy, environment and economy
Weather folklore includes both weather and climate forecasts achieved without data. “Red sky in the morning sailors warning; red sky at night sailors delight” is an example of a weather forecast. The compelling English comment that, “A wet May brings a good load of hay; A hot May makes a fat churchyard” is a climate forecast because it’s based on a pattern established over time. Today we still have both, as national weather agencies provide weather forecasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make climate projections. The fact the IPCC deliberately call them projections and not forecasts is telling, as is the fact they are consistently wrong. They are meaningless, yet they are driving triple E global policies; energy, environment and economy.
They Know The Truth But Continue The Deception
Ironically, the late Stephen Schneider, who was at the centre from the start in the climate debacle, provides a good example of the deception with contradictory statements. In 1993 he told Discover magazine, “Scientists need ”to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” The last part is frightening.
The CRU said, “Uncertainties in our understanding of climate processes, the natural variability of the climate, and limitations of the GCMs mean that their results are not definite predictions of future climate.” To summarize, we don’t have an adequate data-collecting base, we don’t know or understand the historic record, we don’t know the mechanisms, and the computer models don’t work. Despite this they participated in the IPCC deception of world governments at the expense of the people.
