Modeling is not science; All your lovely organizations plus lots others are loaded with people on the dole; "pay me and I'll say anything". Its strange that with all your knowledge you haven't discovered the purpose of the "vast conspiracy" Follow the money and get off the consensus train. Did you ever wonder why a great gas like CO2 takes the blame for so much "warming?"; when without it the planet would be dead and so would you. WE need it and its not hard to see its extremely valuable benefits but how often does the news mention this. Admit you've been sucked into a. conspiracy and its loaded with false claims; hope you enjoy the trip.

Just because third world / poorer countries do not share our ideals, does not mean we, as a country, should not do our part. The same logic would argue that since we can’t stop communism, female genital mutilation, deforestation, ritual murder, stoning and famine (just to name a few ills), we should allow the same? Europe and many other countries do realize the world threat that faces us and have committed to do their part, and the fact that we are pulling out of the climate control accords is appalling.

There is no doubt that our long-term weather is influenced by factors beyond our control, BUT the best weather modeling we can currently conduct indicates we are contributing to the problem, so why not do our best to minimize that contribution, especially since the move to less polluting forms of energy will become a necessity eventually as fossil fuels are exhausted.

Personally, I have spent much of my computer career working with the agencies acquiring the data and analyzing it, and having seen organizations such as NOAA, NCAR, NASA, NCDC, JHU-APL and the various supercomputing sites supporting the modeling, I can tell you from first hand experience and talking with literally many hundreds of scientists in the community, that the data is not being falsified. As I suggested to a previous poster, go examine the data for yourself - it is freely available to anyone with a computer - just start with EOS (earth observation system), and see the visual and climatic data for yourself. Take a look at the satellite views of the arctic over the last 10-20 years and then decide if you think the data is being falsified. Finally ask yourself what would be the purpose of this vast “conspiracy”? Are all these tens of thousands of scientists from all over the world who have spent their lives studying this data wrong? Are they all in-league to deceive us, and to what purpose?

Finally, if you’ve lived in the same area for decades, what do you observe in your own backyard? Here in NC, the climate is slowly becoming warmer and more variable - even our local climate zone for the hardiness of plants has changed in my lifetime. Can you deny what you see with your own eyes? We have owned a condo on the NC coast for about 40 years. Until a few years ago, we had never seen our low lying parking areas flood. Now they do it regularly, and pumps have been installed to control it (and no, there has been no construction or topography changes that would affect it). I sold the condo last year, because when it becomes uninsurable, it will be impossible to borrow money to purchase it, and it will be worthless. I may be a few years too soon, but I can see the trend.

Modeling is not science; All your lovely organizations plus lots others are loaded with people on the dole; "pay me and I'll say anything". Its strange that with all your knowledge you haven't discovered the purpose of the "vast conspiracy" Follow the money and get off the consensus train. Did you ever wonder why a great gas like CO2 takes the blame for so much "warming?"; when without it the planet would be dead and so would you. WE need it and its not hard to see its extremely valuable benefits but how often does the news mention this. Admit you've been sucked into a. conspiracy and its loaded with false claims; hope you enjoy the trip.

No matter what we do as a country, it will not affect the climate of the world. We occupy too little of the surface area of the earth, only around 4%. And the literal scare about carbon dioxide is a complete sham, as well as methane gas. Carbon dioxide makes up only .04% of the atmosphere, and methane a mere .00017%. Carbon dioxide only becomes toxic at levels above 5%, 125 times current levels. In fact, growing seasons could be enhanced, increasing food production, helping eliminate starvation in poor countries.

One of the first things 3rd World countries need to do, is to pave roads, and that requires fossil fuels. Heating will have to be done by either coal, or some other fossil fuel. The massive cost of infrastructure required to create green energy is completely prohibitive, even with foreign aid.

Data have been fabricated, or have you forgotten about the University of East Anglia scandal?

Have worked in IT for a long time, there are no super computers, not even interconnected which can be trusted to come up with accurate climate models. All predictive models are based on historical events. They use "hindcasting" to predict the future. That works only if wind models, the Jet Stream, and ocean tides cooperate.

I've lived in Southeast Michigan for nearly forty years, and the winter predictions are about as accurate as a blind man throwing darts at a dot on a wall from 100 feet. We live far enough north that the Jet Stream is always a factor in forecasting weather. It can move 50 miles in any direction and we may or may not get snow, rain, clear, or clouds.

Before that I lived in Kentucky, where winters usually have minimal amounts of snow, and huge snowstorms may dump as much as 6" on the ground. However, I've seen snow falls as great as 20"+ for two of three winters, and temperatures drop to as much as -20F.

If you live near the Atlantic Ocean, you can look to the Sahara Desert as the genesis for hurricanes and other weather affecting Atlantic coast America and the Caribbean.

Again, I'm not denying that the climate changes. However, we just haven't been around long enough to observe just how.

I think that is going to be difficult to arrive at. In terms of computing resources alone, I would start with Googling “supercomputers dedicated to climate modeling” and of course the “HPC top 500 list” of the top 500 supercomputers in the world. You can spend days following the links, but I think you may find the top 500 list interesting. It won’t tell you what the machines cost, but one fact will become (sadly) obvious: the fastest machines in the world are used for modeling nuclear weapons, followed by weather, high energy physics, medicine/drugs, economics, business analytics, etc...

https://www.top500.org/list/2018/06/

GIGO is a well known acronym, but I would be surprised if the researchers are inputting fake weather data since the data is derived from historical records, sensors (such as bouys and weather balloons) and satellite data and is peer reviewed. Just too many people involved to falsify the data even if you can imagine some far-fetched reason they might want to. Do you know any heads of supercomputing facilities or meteroilogical scientists personally? I’ve met many dozens, perhaps hundreds, and I find the idea that they would ALL falsify data as part of some grand cnspiracy or coordinated agenda difficult to believe. It seems to me much more likely that those proposing such an absurd explanation are badly informed. Which explanation do YOU think is more plausible?