I frequently drive on the western section M25 (London orbital motorway). The outside air temperature displayed by my car's thermometer usually rises by 1 5 to 2 degrees Celsius as I drive close to the Heathrow runways.
On a day when the temperature is close to 100 degrees moving from the sun to the shade of a tree will drop the temperature to an almost comfortable 90. A little wind, which always blows here will cool some more as will an icy cold brew.
I live in North Texas. Hot, Cold, Windy, dry, wet and Hot, especially in? You guessed it, Summer. My parents grew up here and we lived all over the US and a few foreign countries. We were always interested in the weather from home and so checked out the weather stations wherever we were living. In the summer we often led the nation in heat. Hottest place in the country was fairly normal and air conditioning was not. My town is also home of a large Air Force base where the weather gauges were set up. It made sense then to position the gauges on the runway or nearby. All around are parched fields, no water and little vegetation, perfect for training new pilots.
It's still hot here although the temperature measurements' have been relocated. We had a draught in 2011-15. It was bad but nothing compared to the Dust Bowl days or the 50's or 60's.
Our climate changes, day to day, hour to hour. Good AC and Heat pumps make that ok.
I love the map games that are played with color. If you post anything in Red or Orange, OMG death is neigh. Nah, it's over 90 degrees f. It was over 100 for 100 days during the draught, it got so red that it turned dark brown. Then it rained and rained and rained and in the words of Stevie Ray Vaughn, "Texas Floods". It's good to keep the people in panic, you can get away with so much and make a lot of money.
Now, the soccer games are going on and are being deeply affected by excessive heat and humidity. Let's see, Miami, Fl is located on the same longitude as the interior of Saudi Arabia. Who made this schedule? Is it a plot so the powers that be can rage about the Climate Crisis endangering Lionel Messi?
Conclusion: My observations, based on my eyes, longevity, reading ability and general common sense tells me that the Climate Crisis is a large kettle of crap.
I still have my furry Arctic Parka from the days of the 1970's forecast Ice Age and my Anti Ultra-Violet Umbrella from when the hole in the Ozone Layer was growing alarmingly. I shall keep them all, along with my current Solar Topee and Speedos, for the next man-made cycle of crazy ideas. Anyone got a face-mask and swim fins they don't want, so that I can prepare for uncontrollable sea level rises? (Oh and a dry suit that I can fill with ice cubes as the UN Secretary General said that the sea is going to boil.)
Comment on the following. "This is unscientific, because simulations are not the real world; the simulations include all of the assumptions that ideologically-motivated researchers programme into them. Ideology in, ideology out. Actual science requires a comparison of a hypothesis’s claims against evidence obtained by observational evidence – experiment. WWA is consequently little more than a machine for producing BBC and Guardian propaganda articles."
The statement reflects a skepticism toward climate modeling and attribution studies (like World Weather Attribution, or WWA), arguing that simulations are inherently biased because they rely on researchers' assumptions. While this perspective raises valid concerns about model limitations, it oversimplifies the scientific process and misrepresents how climate science works. Here’s a breakdown:
1. "Simulations are not the real world"
True, simulations are approximations, not reality. But this is true of all models in science (e.g., economic models, physics models). The key question is whether they are useful approximations. Climate models are rigorously tested against historical data and observations, and their projections have proven broadly accurate over decades.
2. "Assumptions programmed by ideologically motivated researchers"
This assumes bad faith without evidence. Climate models are based on physics, chemistry, and observable data (e.g., greenhouse gas effects, solar radiation). While assumptions exist (e.g., future emissions scenarios), these are explicitly stated and tested. Peer review and independent replication help mitigate ideological bias.
If ideology were driving results, why do models from different institutions and countries converge on similar conclusions?
Climate science does rely on observational evidence. Attribution studies compare real-world data (e.g., temperature records, extreme weather events) against counterfactual simulations (e.g., a world without human-caused warming). The WWA, for instance, uses statistical methods to assess probabilities based on observed data.
Experiments aren’t always possible in some fields (e.g., astronomy, paleoclimate), but that doesn’t make them unscientific.
4. "WWA as propaganda"
This ignores the transparency of WWA’s methods, which are published and open to scrutiny. If their work were propaganda, why do many conservative governments (e.g., Germany, the UK) cite similar climate risks?
The BBC and The Guardian do tend to emphasize climate risks, but media bias ≠ scientific bias. WWA’s findings are also reported in outlets like The Economist and Nature, which are not ideologically aligned with the left.
5. Broader Context
The statement reflects a growing distrust of institutional science, often fueled by political polarization. However, dismissing modeling outright ignores its successes (e.g., predicting global warming trends, ozone depletion).
A fair critique would focus on specific model uncertainties (e.g., regional impacts, cloud feedbacks) rather than alleging wholesale ideological corruption.
Conclusion:
The argument is a polemic, not a substantive critique. While climate models have uncertainties, they are not mere "ideology machines." The core findings of climate science—that human activity is driving warming and increasing some extreme weather risks—are supported by multiple lines of evidence, including observations. Rejecting modeling entirely would mean rejecting much of modern science, from weather forecasting to aerospace engineering. A more constructive approach would be to engage with the science’s nuances rather than dismissing it outright.
It is not possible, in an article of about 1,500 words, which encompass a range of issues, to develop the depth of criticism seemingly required by people who need AI to do their homework and their thinking for them.
For robust analysis of the fake science of attribution, which is a manifestly political innovation developed to overcome the shortcomings of climate science, and the need to supply supine media with a stream of messaging, I recommend Roger Pielke's six-part examination...
here is a further film from me, putting estimates of attribution and 'impacts' into their policy and political context, which answers the AI's claims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmdBbs3O1g4
WWA's analysis wasn't even a proper, formal, pseudoscientific extreme weather analysis, it was a "super rapid attribution analysis" obviously done with the sole intention of creating headlines AHEAD of the event. Yes, that's right, Otto and her pals at Imperial College London couldn't even be bothered to wait until after the weekend to attribute the supposedly 'extreme' high temperatures; they relied on the weather forecast! Their rushed 'analysis' was even worse than their usual output - which is quite a feat in itself. A total and utter sham.
I frequently drive on the western section M25 (London orbital motorway). The outside air temperature displayed by my car's thermometer usually rises by 1 5 to 2 degrees Celsius as I drive close to the Heathrow runways.
On a day when the temperature is close to 100 degrees moving from the sun to the shade of a tree will drop the temperature to an almost comfortable 90. A little wind, which always blows here will cool some more as will an icy cold brew.
I live in North Texas. Hot, Cold, Windy, dry, wet and Hot, especially in? You guessed it, Summer. My parents grew up here and we lived all over the US and a few foreign countries. We were always interested in the weather from home and so checked out the weather stations wherever we were living. In the summer we often led the nation in heat. Hottest place in the country was fairly normal and air conditioning was not. My town is also home of a large Air Force base where the weather gauges were set up. It made sense then to position the gauges on the runway or nearby. All around are parched fields, no water and little vegetation, perfect for training new pilots.
It's still hot here although the temperature measurements' have been relocated. We had a draught in 2011-15. It was bad but nothing compared to the Dust Bowl days or the 50's or 60's.
Our climate changes, day to day, hour to hour. Good AC and Heat pumps make that ok.
I love the map games that are played with color. If you post anything in Red or Orange, OMG death is neigh. Nah, it's over 90 degrees f. It was over 100 for 100 days during the draught, it got so red that it turned dark brown. Then it rained and rained and rained and in the words of Stevie Ray Vaughn, "Texas Floods". It's good to keep the people in panic, you can get away with so much and make a lot of money.
Now, the soccer games are going on and are being deeply affected by excessive heat and humidity. Let's see, Miami, Fl is located on the same longitude as the interior of Saudi Arabia. Who made this schedule? Is it a plot so the powers that be can rage about the Climate Crisis endangering Lionel Messi?
Conclusion: My observations, based on my eyes, longevity, reading ability and general common sense tells me that the Climate Crisis is a large kettle of crap.
I'd suggest we haven't even had a heatwave. We've had a few (three?) warmer days. That, in my book, does not constitute a heatwave.
Two weeks or more of day time temperatures exceeding 28C I might consider a heatwave otherwise you're just making stuff up.
The little red dot looks like it's right in a flight path
Who funds the WWA?
I still have my furry Arctic Parka from the days of the 1970's forecast Ice Age and my Anti Ultra-Violet Umbrella from when the hole in the Ozone Layer was growing alarmingly. I shall keep them all, along with my current Solar Topee and Speedos, for the next man-made cycle of crazy ideas. Anyone got a face-mask and swim fins they don't want, so that I can prepare for uncontrollable sea level rises? (Oh and a dry suit that I can fill with ice cubes as the UN Secretary General said that the sea is going to boil.)
Ask your preferred AI
DeepSeek.
Comment on the following. "This is unscientific, because simulations are not the real world; the simulations include all of the assumptions that ideologically-motivated researchers programme into them. Ideology in, ideology out. Actual science requires a comparison of a hypothesis’s claims against evidence obtained by observational evidence – experiment. WWA is consequently little more than a machine for producing BBC and Guardian propaganda articles."
The statement reflects a skepticism toward climate modeling and attribution studies (like World Weather Attribution, or WWA), arguing that simulations are inherently biased because they rely on researchers' assumptions. While this perspective raises valid concerns about model limitations, it oversimplifies the scientific process and misrepresents how climate science works. Here’s a breakdown:
1. "Simulations are not the real world"
True, simulations are approximations, not reality. But this is true of all models in science (e.g., economic models, physics models). The key question is whether they are useful approximations. Climate models are rigorously tested against historical data and observations, and their projections have proven broadly accurate over decades.
2. "Assumptions programmed by ideologically motivated researchers"
This assumes bad faith without evidence. Climate models are based on physics, chemistry, and observable data (e.g., greenhouse gas effects, solar radiation). While assumptions exist (e.g., future emissions scenarios), these are explicitly stated and tested. Peer review and independent replication help mitigate ideological bias.
If ideology were driving results, why do models from different institutions and countries converge on similar conclusions?
3. "Actual science requires observational evidence"
Climate science does rely on observational evidence. Attribution studies compare real-world data (e.g., temperature records, extreme weather events) against counterfactual simulations (e.g., a world without human-caused warming). The WWA, for instance, uses statistical methods to assess probabilities based on observed data.
Experiments aren’t always possible in some fields (e.g., astronomy, paleoclimate), but that doesn’t make them unscientific.
4. "WWA as propaganda"
This ignores the transparency of WWA’s methods, which are published and open to scrutiny. If their work were propaganda, why do many conservative governments (e.g., Germany, the UK) cite similar climate risks?
The BBC and The Guardian do tend to emphasize climate risks, but media bias ≠ scientific bias. WWA’s findings are also reported in outlets like The Economist and Nature, which are not ideologically aligned with the left.
5. Broader Context
The statement reflects a growing distrust of institutional science, often fueled by political polarization. However, dismissing modeling outright ignores its successes (e.g., predicting global warming trends, ozone depletion).
A fair critique would focus on specific model uncertainties (e.g., regional impacts, cloud feedbacks) rather than alleging wholesale ideological corruption.
Conclusion:
The argument is a polemic, not a substantive critique. While climate models have uncertainties, they are not mere "ideology machines." The core findings of climate science—that human activity is driving warming and increasing some extreme weather risks—are supported by multiple lines of evidence, including observations. Rejecting modeling entirely would mean rejecting much of modern science, from weather forecasting to aerospace engineering. A more constructive approach would be to engage with the science’s nuances rather than dismissing it outright.
DeepSeek confirms: "Ideology in, ideology out."
It is not possible, in an article of about 1,500 words, which encompass a range of issues, to develop the depth of criticism seemingly required by people who need AI to do their homework and their thinking for them.
For robust analysis of the fake science of attribution, which is a manifestly political innovation developed to overcome the shortcomings of climate science, and the need to supply supine media with a stream of messaging, I recommend Roger Pielke's six-part examination...
Part 1:- "Weather Attribution Alchemy" - https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/weather-attribution-alchemy
Part 2:- "Attribution Stealth Advocacy at the NAS" - https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/attribution-stealth-advocacy-at-the
Part 3:- "Tricks of the Trade" - https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/tricks-of-the-trade
Part 4:- "Climate Science Whiplash" - https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/climate-science-whiplash
Part 5:- "Is Single Extreme Event Attribution Even Possible?" - https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/is-single-extreme-event-attribution
Part 6:- "Behind the Curtain" - https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/behind-the-curtain
For clarity - I make no claim that Pielke agrees with me, or completely shares my views.
Here is my film on 'Attribution'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-bNZdAHK-A
here is a further film from me, putting estimates of attribution and 'impacts' into their policy and political context, which answers the AI's claims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmdBbs3O1g4
WWA's analysis wasn't even a proper, formal, pseudoscientific extreme weather analysis, it was a "super rapid attribution analysis" obviously done with the sole intention of creating headlines AHEAD of the event. Yes, that's right, Otto and her pals at Imperial College London couldn't even be bothered to wait until after the weekend to attribute the supposedly 'extreme' high temperatures; they relied on the weather forecast! Their rushed 'analysis' was even worse than their usual output - which is quite a feat in itself. A total and utter sham.
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/its-summertime-to-blame-the-non-existent