The Climate Scientist Who is Now Debunking Global Warming


A top Japanese climate scientist has had enough of the lies of the climate change religion and is speaking out about the “nonsense” of the “global warming crisis” in a new book.

Dr. Mototaka Nakamura, a highly trained climate modeler with indisputable credentials, is now loudly rejecting the theories that man has destroyed the earth with global warming and is causing irreversible climate change.

In June, Nakamura published a short book in Japanese entitled, Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, that skewers “the sorry state of climate science.”

Trending: Ginsburg Halts Democrats’ Attempts To Get Trump Financial Records

According to Quadrant’s Tony Thomas, this Japanese scientist is high qualified: “From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.”

take our poll - story continues below

Which Democrat will drop out of the race next?

  • Which Democrat will drop out of the race next?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Nakamura insists that the data used by these climate alarmists is little else but propaganda:

Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public,” he writes.

The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he says. However, “the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.” The reason:

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.

Nakamura also pointed out that the claims made by climate alarmists who say they know what will come in the near future are simply lying.

“Climate forecasting is simply impossible,” Nakamura says, “if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable. As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.”

Other gross model simplifications include

# Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics

# A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.

# Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet.”

# Inability to deal with water vapor elements

# Arbitrary “tunings” (fudges) of key parameters that are not understood

Nakamura also said that solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity.” But he adds, “It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”

The Quadrant article has much more and a lot of heavy science. But suffice to say that everything the climate alarmists say is based on no legitimate scientific theory.

H/T American Thinker.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

Don't forget to Like Godfather Politics on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Godfather Politics email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

You Might Like
Previous Proof the Fake Case Against Gen. Michael Flynn was Just Way to 'Get' Trump
Next Another Kingdom Mentioned in the Bible is Verified by Archeologists

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.