Heritage Foundation : Global Warming Data Exaggerated By James Reed

Here is yet more research challenging the received position on climate change. But, why should we be interested ? As always the case I make for the need to get out this otherwise suppressed material is that the climate change alarmist agenda is now mainstream government policy, right across the West. And it has become part of mainstream culture, with indoctrination about climate change doomsday being pushed in the schools, and certainly at the universities. There is no fair critical views permitted.

The Heritage Foundation critique is based upon showing that the climate models used by the UN, are inaccurate, as the temperature data is in reality much lower than that used in the models, so the models are 'running hot.' There has been a small increase in the global average temperature since 1945, but the model-average warming trend is 54 percent higher than what is observed. This alone, is enough to discredit the present climate change policies of the Australian government, with its turning away from reliable, and cheaper, fossil fuels to pursue the Green illusion of so-called "renewable" energy of unreliable wind and solar.

The Green Party who has pushed the renewable myth must be voted from office at the next election.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-02-27-global-warming-data-exaggerated-climate-models-research.html

"They say the science is "settled" on climate change, but is this actually true? New research from The Heritage Foundation provides compelling evidence to suggest that most climate models and associated data depict grossly exaggerated scenarios that have almost no chance of ever coming to fruition, no matter the scare tactics used to push them.

Over the past 50 years, there has been a tiny bit of warming, you might say, as the climate is always changing. Weather is always in flux, ebbing and flowing upwards and downwards with the changing seasons. With that in mind, climate data as it currently exists is hardly alarming when looking at it honestly without the usual climate paranoia.

The Heritage Foundation produced data in a commentary showing that actual temperatures over the years are much lower than the climate models suggest. And yet, we are constantly being told that the planet and oceans are on the verge of "melting" and "boiling" based on nothing more than unfounded fear and paranoia.

Climate worshippers everywhere insist that, unless we all stop eating meat, passing gas, driving cars and traveling overseas – and most importantly to them, unless we pay our carbon taxes – there will come a day when ocean levels rise and surpass most land masses, leaving nowhere for anyone to live except in a houseboat.

What The Heritage Foundation's report shows is that starting in 1945 – this date is used as a benchmark because carbon dioxide (CO2) so-called "emissions" really started to rise after World War II – average temperatures did somewhat increase.

"... when one compares the future warming response in 33 computer models to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial levels (called '2x CO2'), 1945 is the starting year that produces the highest correlation between those warming trends and the eventual total amount of global-average warming in response to 2xCO2," explains the Daily Signal about the study.

"In other words, 1945 is the starting date when computer models' past warming trends best predict future rates of global warming."

Keep in mind that the above 33 count comes from a pool of computer models that was only 34 in totality, meaning all but one of the models actually matches reality as outlined in official temperature data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Even when using the computer models deemed most likely by the United Nations' (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to have the most likely response to a doubling in CO2 levels, the model-average warming trend is still 54 percent higher than what is actually being observed. And similar to the above 33 out of 34 climate models from the NOAA being exaggerated, 25 of the 26 climate models in the UN category likewise depicted far more warming than actually occurred in real life.

All of this is critically important because climate models are what politicians everywhere are using to form climate policy. If the data they are relying on is incorrect, which it is, then harsh policies like driving and travel restrictions, as well as carbon credits and carbon taxes, are based on little more than climate fiction.

Truth be told, the planet will eventually "warm," you might say, to the point of being burnt by fire, but that will be a prophetic act of God, not a result of mankind not living "green" enough for the globalists' liking.

There is no such thing as man-made global warming, unless they mean geoengineering and other forms of deliberate weather manipulation.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/02/09/climate-models-exaggerate-effects-of-global-warming/