The Climate Blame Game 

Posted: April 14, 2021 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, data, modelling, weather


A diet of daily assertions that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are a big deal, isn’t evidence of anything.
– – –
A paper published today shows that attempts to blame extreme weather on human-caused global warming are “overconfident and probably wrong”, says The Global Warming Policy Forum.

The paper, by statistician and philosopher of science Dr William M Briggs, reveals that mainstream attribution science is beset by flaws of reasoning, modelling and data.

Dr Briggs points out that most attribution claims are based around comparing simulations of the climate today to simulations of the climate as it might have been without human activity. But as he explains, this approach has a fundamental problem:

We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity. Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like.”

And Dr Briggs also points out that even if we did know, it would still not be enough.

In order to attribute individual weather events to humankind, scientists need a perfect model of the climate. They do not have this. Therefore, claims that we are responsible for any particular weather event are at best overconfident, if not plain wrong.”

Paper: The Climate Blame Game: Are we really causing extreme weather?

Claims made in so-called climate change event attribution
studies suffer from gross over-certainties and cannot be
trusted. The techniques used in these studies are in their
infancy and do not warrant the trust put into them. These
studies assume either (a) perfect forecasting models, or
(b) known, uncertainty-free causes of climate change.
Neither condition holds. Because of this, attribution claims
are far too certain or are wrong. They should not be used
in any policy decisions.

  1. oldbrew says:

    Paper: That climate change can only be unfortunate, and in contradictory ways, says more about the researchers than it does about the atmosphere.

  2. tallbloke says:


  3. JB says:

    “…to rigorously study the anthropogenic CO2 – climate change hypothesis, for example, we would need another planet earth with the same number of humans, cows, lakes, oceans, and kittens that did NOT burn fossil fuels for 50 years. But, since these scenarios are never going to happen the folks that carry out natural experiments do the best they can to statistically manipulate data to separate as many confounding factors as possible in every effort to identify the relationship between cause and effect.” –Dr Peter Attia

    And we all know where statistical modeling ends up…. It becomes a crutch for the analyzer, who becomes impaired at looking at the raw data, seeing and accepting what is there, not confirm their agenda bias.

  4. oldbrew says:

    *How wrong* is the model?…

    Paper: model-based climate-attribution claims assume perfect models – which is absurd. This criticism cannot be over-emphasised. All attribution claims assume model perfection. The models can’t be ‘good enough’ – they have to be faultless for the attribution to have a definite meaning. Since models are imperfect, this is never the case.
    – – –
    Models without pretend ‘CO2 forcing’ are highly likely to be closer to the recorded data. Most so-called greenhouse gas is water vapour anyway. Of course it’s hard to see that through alarmist blinkers

  5. Phoenix44 says:

    Worse they assume their own conclusion – that CO2 causes more extreme weather. If the model doesn’t assume that then the model doesn’t show CO2 causing more extreme weather. They are simply modelling their assumptions, not proving that their assumptions are correct.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Paper: If the models are wrong or uncertain, then so are claims of attributions.

    That’s about the size of it.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Doom Goblin Greta Thunberg’s TV Show Is A Ratings Disaster

    One possibility for its failure is that audiences are suffering from a severe case of Greta fatigue. Another is that viewers aren’t nearly as interested in climate doom as politicians, green activists or the BBC think they ought to be.
    – – –
    Ignoring the climate oracle – how dare they?!

  8. Tom Williams says:

    I believe that the Climate Change cult has just hit a new low. There were several articles today about “Climate Change” changing the earth’s axis. Yes – 3 degrees Fahrenheit can overwhelm the mass of the planet…Upon further reading, Nat Geo posted an article that in the past, changes in the axis impacted Climate – not vice versa, It has gotten depraved!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s