Is adverse weather mistaken for climate change? The age of politicized science

With the advent of the "climate cult", adverse weather conditions are espoused as proof of climate change.

Adverse weather like cold snaps, heat waves, torrential rain and floods, hurricanes, and other weather phenomenon, are now given prime time media slots, where a causal connection to climate change is claimed. In addition, climate change is no longer defined as a natural occurring event, the inference to climate change suggest these events are the result of human activities.

The more adverse weather events shown in the media, the more people believe climate change is the cause. These causality suggestions create an availability heuristic, reinforces the perception these events are the result of climate change. We now have a tendency to believe that adverse weather is associated with climate change, through a socially created input bias about climate change. We also believe these events are more common that before. Most, particularly the young, believe this 'as reality', which adds to the fear of climate change.

Lifetime memories for older generations are impossible to quantify. The underlying reality is there have always been adverse weather conditions, that may or may not be occurring more regularly than previous times. Through these input biases, most succumb to the power of suggestion, adverse weather is more frequent and more violent than previously.

The climate cult

A climate cult has emerged through the media, and has its heroes and those who espouse doomsday scenarios. Any extreme weather is deemed to be proof of climate change. Climate change has become a massive industry in itself with speakers earning large sums of money from speaking and books. There is no way to objectively determine the validity of this claim that adverse weather is a symptom of climate change, as weather records only go back less than 200 years.

There are many regional and global phenomenon like El Nino and La Nina that push weather into long cycles. There are numerous other factors including celestial, land surface, ocean, and subterranean that influence these cycles of weather in the short and long term. Therefore the connection between weather cycles and climate change is difficult to accurately determine.

Any disagreement about links between adverse weather and climate change, lead to accusations of being a climate denier. Evidence now clearly shows public discourse on climate change has been suppressed. Going against the narrative is getting people sidelined professionally, where they become banned from publishing in journals, books, and even social media.

This is not a healthy environment for science.

The US EPA claims that climate change is associated with extreme weather and such events as heat waves and large storms, that are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change. Any search on the Google search engine will not bring up any websites or papers that dispute this. The climate cult uses adverse weather as a sign of proof of climate change.

Is climate change science complete?

Many claim the science of climate change is complete. There are also claims that there is a general consensus by scientists about climate change. If this is the case, then climate change is uniquely the only field of science, that is complete.

We are still learning about how the sub-atomic world is constructed. We may soon reach a new era where quantum physics is replaced by a new paradigm, just as Newtonian physics was replaced by quantum physics, just over one years ago. We are still not sure how the universe was formed. We are on the verge of discovering new layers of the Earth's core. This may, or may not be another factor influencing weather and climate. Excavations around the ancient city of Angkor Wat, are finding clues it may be much older than originally thought.

Science is the patient pursuit of new information, that sometimes leads to new truths. These clues may appear after decades of work, which may bring new revelations in the science they are working upon. Why would climate change science be any different?

The climate change hypothesis is yet to stand upon any solid facts

The first task in any science investigation is to find all the variables that contribute to the study of a phenomena, in this case climate change. We have many parallel models to look at and examine within our solar system for clues. All planets have been affected by climate change. We also have remaining artefacts from the Earth's natural history to tell us what the climate once was.

Once all the variables have been identified, they can be measured, modelled with certain assumptions, to project retrospectively into the past to see any possible correlations. This gives us a hypothesis to then project into the future.

Climate change science is just that, a bunch of complex assumptions, about complex variables, that are projected into the future. As game theory suggests, there can be many different outcomes, as variables are changed.

Consequently, Climate change science is completely based upon modelling into the future. Its an unproven hypothesis. This was not too much different with the original Covid-19 modelling undertaken by Professor Neil Ferguson's group at Manchester University. We all know about the grave mathematical errors these models made, just projecting a few months into the future.

Projecting mathematical climate change models fifty and one hundred years into the future, based primarily upon weather data that has only been collected over the last few years, is fraught with danger of being grossly inaccurate.

Climate change science, which is based upon mathematical modelling is nothing more than a prediction of an outcome in the future. It's not unsimilar to taking all known variables about an upcoming horse race and trying to predict a winner. There will always be unknown variables, incorrectly measured variables, butterfly effects we are not aware of, and black swan events.

With the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in science as a research tool, more complex models can be developed with more complex variables. AI systems will be able to sift through data and look for relationships within variables, humans are not able to pick up. Generative modelling will be able to look at, and evaluate data, to arrive at the most plausible hypothesis. This will be a gamechanger in climate science.

You cannot have science without continuous research

Without further objective and impartial research, climate change will never be fully understood. One grave concern within the research community is that scientists are given grants on the basis of their attitudes towards climate change. The funders of climate change research are politicians, not scientists. There are expectations research supports current narratives, so there are no incentives and even a danger to researchers who would present any research deviating from those ideas. Climate change is dependent upon carbon emissions and other hypotheses would totally destroy the industries built around this assumption.

This is a great disincentive to go beyond the envelop in climate change research. These expectations and behavior of the climate cult are doing a great disservice to science and the pursuit of objective research.