This is really helpful to see the topics covered in outline all in one place. And it's impressive to see the summaries of the presentations, step by step. Again, really helpful. Thank you for organizing it!
Just listened to David Hilderman's Podcast. Another good one. Is David familiar with the Climate Realists of BC (climaterealists.ca)? If not he should get in touch with them. They meet regularly and set up talks/presentations with various business and academic groups out in the Victoria area. John Rustad (the BC Conservative leader) has had many discussions with them. We (the Friends of Science Society, friendsofscience.org) enjoy working with them. I am the FOSS President and have been engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. Started watching the subject back in the early 1990s when I was the lead engineer on a Carbon Sequestration project up in Northern Alberta. Stared writing on the subject in 2018 (all of my musings can be found at climatechangeandmusic.com). I depend primarily on empirical data (downloading the data and doing the analysis myself), not the opinions from anywhere on the climate change spectrum. I was accepted as a CLINTEL signatory around the 800 signatory mark.
I lead a team of 35 Professors at Universities who participate in the Expert and Government Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports for the Global Change Group of the National Academy of Sciences. The Global Change Group was shut down because of this. There reports are deliberate science fiction. As an example, when Jim Skea the liar said we need to lower carbon dioxide by 45% by 2030 he was basing that statement on a paragraph buried on page 95 in the SR 1.5 report. That paragraph has no references. They made it up. We forced them to move it to page 6 of the AR6 report paragraph b.1.3. Also for working group 1 for SR 1.5 we found the Global Warming Potential model was fake. It wasn’t benchmarked with the data in annex two (appendix two). Also their fake model assumes equal concentrations of greenhouse gases which will never happen carbon dioxide is 219 times more concentrated than methane. Also they ignore the below cure taught is every college chemistry and physics classes since the 1940’s. Any Bill which brings in money for climate change that money must be paid the Climate Change Truth Inc. cctruth.org The United Nations has 20 “Emissions gap” scientists whom are supposed to review the IPCC reports. However they only review the lying summary for policy makers which don’t match anything in their reports. The IPCC woke scientists make the Summary for Policy of what the United nations wants to hear which matches their false agenda. Cctruth.org
Trump at UN. Called Climate Change the green new scam. Climate science is never settled. I lead a team of 35 Professors at Universities who participate in the Expert and Government Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports for the Global Change Group of the National Academy of Sciences. The Global Change Group was shut down because of this. There reports are deliberate science fiction. As an example, when Jim Skea the liar said we need to lower carbon dioxide by 45% by 2030 he was basing that statement on a paragraph buried on page 95 in the SR 1.5 report. That paragraph has no references. They made it up. We forced them to move it to page 6 of the AR6 report paragraph b.1.3. Also for working group 1 for SR 1.5 we found the Global Warming Potential model was fake. It wasn’t benchmarked with the data in annex two (appendix two). Also their fake model assumes equal concentrations of greenhouse gases which will never happen carbon dioxide is 219 times more concentrated than methane. Also they ignore the below cure taught is every college chemistry and physics classes since the 1940’s. Any Bill which brings in money for climate change that money must be paid the Climate Change Truth Inc. cctruth.org The United Nations has 20 “Emissions gap” scientists whom are supposed to review the IPCC reports. However they only review the lying summary for policy makers which don’t match anything in their reports. The IPCC woke scientists make the Summary for Policy of what the United nations wants to hear which matches their false agenda. Cctruth.org
Hi Tom. I've watched a number of your podcasts and have read several books pertaining to climate change including those by Lomborg, Goreham, Shellenberger, Epstein, etc. but have seen hardly anything related to the potent greenhouse gases of sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride that are used in the manufacture and use of renewable energy sources such as solar panels, wind turbines, EVs, etc. It seems to me, climate alarmists are ignoring emissions of these gases in their concern that greenhouse gases cause global warming. Based on the references I've seen in a literature search (Google Scholar), these emissions are increasing at an exponential rate with the increased manufacture of these sources (especially in China and SE Asia). Do you plan to maybe interview an expert on this issue in the future? Thank you - I've been learning a lot from your podcasts.
I lead a team of 35 Professors at Universities who participate in the Expert and Government Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports for the Global Change Group of the National Academy of Sciences. The Global Change Group was shut down because of this. There reports are deliberate science fiction. As an example, when Jim Skea the liar said we need to lower carbon dioxide by 45% by 2030 he was basing that statement on a paragraph buried on page 95 in the SR 1.5 report. That paragraph has no references. They made it up. We forced them to move it to page 6 of the AR6 report paragraph b.1.3. Also for working group 1 for SR 1.5 we found the Global Warming Potential model was fake. It wasn’t benchmarked with the data in annex two (appendix two). Also their fake model assumes equal concentrations of greenhouse gases which will never happen carbon dioxide is 219 times more concentrated than methane. Also they ignore the below cure taught is every college chemistry and physics classes since the 1940’s. Any Bill which brings in money for climate change that money must be paid the Climate Change Truth Inc. cctruth.org The United Nations has 20 “Emissions gap” scientists whom are supposed to review the IPCC reports. However they only review the lying summary for policy makers which don’t match anything in their reports. The IPCC woke scientists make the Summary for Policy of what the United nations wants to hear which matches their false agenda. Cctruth.org
I lead a team of 35 Professors at Universities who participate in the Expert and Government Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports for the Global Change Group of the National Academy of Sciences. The Global Change Group was shut down because of this. There reports are deliberate science fiction. As an example, when Jim Skea the liar said we need to lower carbon dioxide by 45% by 2030 he was basing that statement on a paragraph buried on page 95 in the SR 1.5 report. That paragraph has no references. They made it up. We forced them to move it to page 6 of the AR6 report paragraph b.1.3. Also for working group 1 for SR 1.5 we found the Global Warming Potential model was fake. It wasn’t benchmarked with the data in annex two (appendix two). Also their fake model assumes equal concentrations of greenhouse gases which will never happen carbon dioxide is 219 times more concentrated than methane. Also they ignore the below cure taught is every college chemistry and physics classes since the 1940’s. Any Bill which brings in money for climate change that money must be paid the Climate Change Truth Inc. cctruth.org The United Nations has 20 “Emissions gap” scientists whom are supposed to review the IPCC reports. However they only review the lying summary for policy makers which don’t match anything in their reports. The IPCC woke scientists make the Summary for Policy of what the United nations wants to hear which matches their false agenda. Cctruth.org
For a model to be useful for policy decisions, statistical fit is insufficient. Evidence that the model provides out-of-estimation-sample forecasts that are more accurate and reliable than those from plausible alternative models, including a simple benchmark, is necessary.
The UN’s IPCC advises governments with forecasts of global average temperature drawn from models based on hypotheses of causality. Specifically, manmade warming principally from carbon dioxide emissions (Anthro) tempered by the effects of volcanic eruptions (Volcanic) and by variations in the Sun’s energy (Solar). Out-of-sample forecasts from that model, with and without the IPCC’s favoured measure of Solar, were compared with forecasts from models that excluded human influence and included Volcanic and one of two independent measures of Solar. The models were used to forecast Northern Hemisphere land temperatures and—to avoid urban heat island effects—rural only temperatures. Benchmark forecasts were obtained by extrapolating estimation sample median temperatures. The independent solar models reduced forecast errors relative to those of the benchmark model for all eight combinations of four estimation periods and the two temperature variables tested. The models that included the IPCC’s Anthro variable reduced errors for only three of the eight combinations and produced extreme forecast errors from most model estimation periods. The mean correlation between estimation sample statistical fit and forecast accuracy was -0.30. Further tests might identify better models: Only one extrapolation model and only two of many possible independent solar models were tested, and combinations of forecasts from different methods were not examined. The anthropogenic models’ unreliability would appear to void policy relevance. In practice, even the models validated in this study may fail to improve accuracy relative to naïve forecasts due to uncertainty over the future causal variable values. Our findings emphasise that out-of-sample forecast errors, not statistical fit, should be used to choose between models (hypotheses).
So true. I have graduate 461 statistics. Their models are not benchmarked with available data. See greenhouse gas data on cctruth.org for true measured data the IPCC GWP fake model ignores.
This is really helpful to see the topics covered in outline all in one place. And it's impressive to see the summaries of the presentations, step by step. Again, really helpful. Thank you for organizing it!
Thanks, Caroline!
Tom,
Just listened to David Hilderman's Podcast. Another good one. Is David familiar with the Climate Realists of BC (climaterealists.ca)? If not he should get in touch with them. They meet regularly and set up talks/presentations with various business and academic groups out in the Victoria area. John Rustad (the BC Conservative leader) has had many discussions with them. We (the Friends of Science Society, friendsofscience.org) enjoy working with them. I am the FOSS President and have been engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. Started watching the subject back in the early 1990s when I was the lead engineer on a Carbon Sequestration project up in Northern Alberta. Stared writing on the subject in 2018 (all of my musings can be found at climatechangeandmusic.com). I depend primarily on empirical data (downloading the data and doing the analysis myself), not the opinions from anywhere on the climate change spectrum. I was accepted as a CLINTEL signatory around the 800 signatory mark.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks, Ron
president@friendsofscience.org
Sorry, I just read your comment now! I've just forwarded your comment to David Hilderman; I also emailed you.
I lead a team of 35 Professors at Universities who participate in the Expert and Government Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports for the Global Change Group of the National Academy of Sciences. The Global Change Group was shut down because of this. There reports are deliberate science fiction. As an example, when Jim Skea the liar said we need to lower carbon dioxide by 45% by 2030 he was basing that statement on a paragraph buried on page 95 in the SR 1.5 report. That paragraph has no references. They made it up. We forced them to move it to page 6 of the AR6 report paragraph b.1.3. Also for working group 1 for SR 1.5 we found the Global Warming Potential model was fake. It wasn’t benchmarked with the data in annex two (appendix two). Also their fake model assumes equal concentrations of greenhouse gases which will never happen carbon dioxide is 219 times more concentrated than methane. Also they ignore the below cure taught is every college chemistry and physics classes since the 1940’s. Any Bill which brings in money for climate change that money must be paid the Climate Change Truth Inc. cctruth.org The United Nations has 20 “Emissions gap” scientists whom are supposed to review the IPCC reports. However they only review the lying summary for policy makers which don’t match anything in their reports. The IPCC woke scientists make the Summary for Policy of what the United nations wants to hear which matches their false agenda. Cctruth.org
Trump at UN. Called Climate Change the green new scam. Climate science is never settled. I lead a team of 35 Professors at Universities who participate in the Expert and Government Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports for the Global Change Group of the National Academy of Sciences. The Global Change Group was shut down because of this. There reports are deliberate science fiction. As an example, when Jim Skea the liar said we need to lower carbon dioxide by 45% by 2030 he was basing that statement on a paragraph buried on page 95 in the SR 1.5 report. That paragraph has no references. They made it up. We forced them to move it to page 6 of the AR6 report paragraph b.1.3. Also for working group 1 for SR 1.5 we found the Global Warming Potential model was fake. It wasn’t benchmarked with the data in annex two (appendix two). Also their fake model assumes equal concentrations of greenhouse gases which will never happen carbon dioxide is 219 times more concentrated than methane. Also they ignore the below cure taught is every college chemistry and physics classes since the 1940’s. Any Bill which brings in money for climate change that money must be paid the Climate Change Truth Inc. cctruth.org The United Nations has 20 “Emissions gap” scientists whom are supposed to review the IPCC reports. However they only review the lying summary for policy makers which don’t match anything in their reports. The IPCC woke scientists make the Summary for Policy of what the United nations wants to hear which matches their false agenda. Cctruth.org
Hi Tom. I've watched a number of your podcasts and have read several books pertaining to climate change including those by Lomborg, Goreham, Shellenberger, Epstein, etc. but have seen hardly anything related to the potent greenhouse gases of sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride that are used in the manufacture and use of renewable energy sources such as solar panels, wind turbines, EVs, etc. It seems to me, climate alarmists are ignoring emissions of these gases in their concern that greenhouse gases cause global warming. Based on the references I've seen in a literature search (Google Scholar), these emissions are increasing at an exponential rate with the increased manufacture of these sources (especially in China and SE Asia). Do you plan to maybe interview an expert on this issue in the future? Thank you - I've been learning a lot from your podcasts.
I lead a team of 35 Professors at Universities who participate in the Expert and Government Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports for the Global Change Group of the National Academy of Sciences. The Global Change Group was shut down because of this. There reports are deliberate science fiction. As an example, when Jim Skea the liar said we need to lower carbon dioxide by 45% by 2030 he was basing that statement on a paragraph buried on page 95 in the SR 1.5 report. That paragraph has no references. They made it up. We forced them to move it to page 6 of the AR6 report paragraph b.1.3. Also for working group 1 for SR 1.5 we found the Global Warming Potential model was fake. It wasn’t benchmarked with the data in annex two (appendix two). Also their fake model assumes equal concentrations of greenhouse gases which will never happen carbon dioxide is 219 times more concentrated than methane. Also they ignore the below cure taught is every college chemistry and physics classes since the 1940’s. Any Bill which brings in money for climate change that money must be paid the Climate Change Truth Inc. cctruth.org The United Nations has 20 “Emissions gap” scientists whom are supposed to review the IPCC reports. However they only review the lying summary for policy makers which don’t match anything in their reports. The IPCC woke scientists make the Summary for Policy of what the United nations wants to hear which matches their false agenda. Cctruth.org
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/christian-leuchtenberg_new-theoretical-paradigm-of-climate-science-activity-7276102155579572224-PrqG?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
Thanks, Christian!
I lead a team of 35 Professors at Universities who participate in the Expert and Government Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports for the Global Change Group of the National Academy of Sciences. The Global Change Group was shut down because of this. There reports are deliberate science fiction. As an example, when Jim Skea the liar said we need to lower carbon dioxide by 45% by 2030 he was basing that statement on a paragraph buried on page 95 in the SR 1.5 report. That paragraph has no references. They made it up. We forced them to move it to page 6 of the AR6 report paragraph b.1.3. Also for working group 1 for SR 1.5 we found the Global Warming Potential model was fake. It wasn’t benchmarked with the data in annex two (appendix two). Also their fake model assumes equal concentrations of greenhouse gases which will never happen carbon dioxide is 219 times more concentrated than methane. Also they ignore the below cure taught is every college chemistry and physics classes since the 1940’s. Any Bill which brings in money for climate change that money must be paid the Climate Change Truth Inc. cctruth.org The United Nations has 20 “Emissions gap” scientists whom are supposed to review the IPCC reports. However they only review the lying summary for policy makers which don’t match anything in their reports. The IPCC woke scientists make the Summary for Policy of what the United nations wants to hear which matches their false agenda. Cctruth.org
Are Climate Model Forecasts Useful for Policy Making? Effect of Variable Choice on Reliability and Predictive Validity - Kesten C. Green and Willie Soon https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol-5.1-Green_and_Soon-Model-Forecasts.pdf
Abstract
For a model to be useful for policy decisions, statistical fit is insufficient. Evidence that the model provides out-of-estimation-sample forecasts that are more accurate and reliable than those from plausible alternative models, including a simple benchmark, is necessary.
The UN’s IPCC advises governments with forecasts of global average temperature drawn from models based on hypotheses of causality. Specifically, manmade warming principally from carbon dioxide emissions (Anthro) tempered by the effects of volcanic eruptions (Volcanic) and by variations in the Sun’s energy (Solar). Out-of-sample forecasts from that model, with and without the IPCC’s favoured measure of Solar, were compared with forecasts from models that excluded human influence and included Volcanic and one of two independent measures of Solar. The models were used to forecast Northern Hemisphere land temperatures and—to avoid urban heat island effects—rural only temperatures. Benchmark forecasts were obtained by extrapolating estimation sample median temperatures. The independent solar models reduced forecast errors relative to those of the benchmark model for all eight combinations of four estimation periods and the two temperature variables tested. The models that included the IPCC’s Anthro variable reduced errors for only three of the eight combinations and produced extreme forecast errors from most model estimation periods. The mean correlation between estimation sample statistical fit and forecast accuracy was -0.30. Further tests might identify better models: Only one extrapolation model and only two of many possible independent solar models were tested, and combinations of forecasts from different methods were not examined. The anthropogenic models’ unreliability would appear to void policy relevance. In practice, even the models validated in this study may fail to improve accuracy relative to naïve forecasts due to uncertainty over the future causal variable values. Our findings emphasise that out-of-sample forecast errors, not statistical fit, should be used to choose between models (hypotheses).
So true. I have graduate 461 statistics. Their models are not benchmarked with available data. See greenhouse gas data on cctruth.org for true measured data the IPCC GWP fake model ignores.
How can i listen to the full list?
Here is the full playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL89cj_OtPeenLkWMmdwcT8Dt0DGMb8RGR
I'm sorry you guys