I smell a rat. On Climate Change.

The article linked to here is just one example of what I have been following for decades now and something is "off" and people appear to be lying and doing so knowingly.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was created about 30 years ago and developed 100 different computer models to predict future climate. On the basis of those computer model projections, they issued some dire warnings in their first report, which then they cut in half (forecasts of global warming and sea level change and the like) in their most recent report.

But, because their first predictions have now been out for decades, one can compare forecast data with actual observations and the real world is refusing to cooperate with their models. The actual observed changes are much much less than any projections and hugely different than the average of all of their models put together.

This appears to be unacceptable to the main entities participating in this (the UN and the meteorological offices of the US, UK and Australia) and when the observed readings do not fit your forecasts, you "fix" the observed data, apparently.

Just one example of it is detailed in the enclosed and it is the "homogenization" of data of actual observations. The argument is that thermometers are sometimes located in urban areas where there is a "tall buildings effect" (tall buildings create shade due to which temperatures in the microclimate of a big city are lower than they would be otherwise) so they take the actual observed readings - what the thermometer actually said - and "adjust" it to what it would say if there was no tall buildings effect.

However, they appear to be doing this in the case of Australia for ALL of Australia's weather stations, not only those in large cities and they refuse to give other scientists raw data on how they calculated and adjusted for the "tall buildings effect".

If for whatever reason real world temperatures did not rise as predicted by the models, sea level rise would not be a concern and all of these people would have nothing to do. Nobody can tell me that they do not understand that and that they are able to separate their concerns about their livelihood from how they handle the data. Or at least they should show the world how they do it but they refuse to.

Another example that I have been following for years where something is "off" too is the project to put more satellites into orbit to measure the thickness of ice in polar caps, not just its area (or "extent") as is done now. It makes sense if you think about it because if 90% of an iceberg is below water, you would want to measure that more precisely than the 10% or so which is visible to establish how much ice in total there is.

So I read about these new satellites being put in place by the EU about 5 years ago and have been waiting to see the data from them but there is nothing reported anywhere. It is very odd and I have looked several times a year for a few years now.

What if they did measure the ice volume and it turns out that what is seen on the surface where there is quite a bit of seasonal variability and year-to-year variability is not quite the same "under the surface"? What if the total volume of ice in water in the Arctic is 2% less or 2.5% less than 30 years ago. Or what if there is actually more of it - would the data still be widely shared and reported because after all, it was "good news"? I do not believe it would be as the academic and political industries of global warming cataclysm are simply too big to not be worried about their own survival.

Just my sense and happy to be proven wrong. But please bring data if you do want to prove something. Not the "flat Earth society" stuff. Good thing Hitler did not say anything about climate ever so at least there aren't those tired analogies to mine.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/21/homogenization-of-temperature-data-by-the-bureau-of-meteorology/