Nakamura Mototaka, a Ph.D. in climatology from MIT, has worked at NASA, the Georgia Institute of Technology, Duke University and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology and published many advanced studies in climatology and climate modeling. Now he has a book out that… calls baloney on the whole enterprise (originally in Japanese, but with free English translation on Kindle). In it he lays bare all the fudging, cheating and guesswork that goes into climate models, all of which is well-known among insiders who carefully conceal it from the public. And he pulls no punches: "I am confident that some honest and courageous, true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the mainstream climate science community in English.”
According to Mototaka, who worries bluntly that climate scientists in Japan are even more “docile and/or incompetent” than those elsewhere, climate models are fine for scientific experimentation. But they are worthless for forecasting because they cannot even begin to handle the complexities of the real world. Thus their use for planning purposes is at best misguided:
These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.
I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process.
As for what will really happen if we don’t change our sinful ways, Mototaka expects warming from CO2 doubling will be minimal, only about half a degree C, an estimate which he ascribes "to the true experts." But he adds the crucial detail that it is impossible to predict even the direction of change in a system as complex as the climate.
The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naïve climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics.
There’s more, about more basic things. In addition to his extensive criticisms of climate models, he warns that the temperature records being used to promote global warming alarm are no better than the models.
The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.
Apart from which the science is settled.
Why is it that these types of articles aren’t published and discussed / debated so we can have an
open and honest appraisal of what I consider a global warming hoax.
The answer is obvious......the hoaxers don't want discussion or debate because it will reveal their fraud.