From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

So here is the big headline:

NOAA deploys a new generation of AI-driven global weather models

I am watching them. So far, they are a joke. All over the place, little run to run consistency, in short, they mimic the NOAA GEFS, the flagship of the US models that over the years billions have been spent to develop, being abysmally in last place even on day 5 vs the European (red) and Canadian (blue). I am sure the UKMET is beating it, too.

The Euro AI’s are also all over the place.  The recent  Thanksgiving to Christmas cold shot, seen by us and bullet pointed in the Aug 29 issuance of our winter forecast, was not seen till mid November by models. Even now they are all over the place on January.  But believe it or not, I am not here to hammer them on the weather, but on something else I found out.

Every December, I meet with some prominent climate skeptics (who shall remain nameless to protect their innocence) at an undisclosed location, which we always keep secret, to make sure Climate nuts don’t show up and spray paint us orange (Okay it’s a place near Boston). So, two of them are engaged in a major project to make sure the AI’s are getting all climate information, not just what the existing paradigm is. Basically, they are doing on a grand scale what you have seen me do in some of the blogs.  So, I assumed that once corrected, once the AI admits its wrong and did not see something, it becomes part of the AI’s database.

WRONG

Apparently, what goes on here, as I understand it, is that it will not incorporate what it’s forced to correct. So, it’s getting a continuous stream of information that is one sided and even if corrected, will not adapt it. It may come to the conclusion that it does, and the conclusion may be opposite of what it was before you asked it to go look at the other ideas, but then it does not get incorporated in.

So it will respond and correct itself with you, but it won’t then change its database to adapt that as its answer to someone else.

This is quite interesting to me.  The man-made climate agenda is not going away.  It’s simply retooling for the day that the current people in charge are no longer in charge.  The idea that I see with people on my side that we are “winning” is laughable to me.  History should tell you that.  A small group of zealots convinced they have the answer have always managed to somehow seize control, and to them, climate policy is the ultimate control tool.

The AI is a tool, also. But I suspect most of them are being programmed by people who have a worldview that is strongly in support of the man-made climate disaster scenario.  And since that exists so strongly in the AI’s, it’s a daunting task to get an even-handed presentation of information for them to consider. Their fallback position is always what was fed into them, as even when admitting something, they apparently are not incorporating it.

And I don’t know about you meteorologists out there, but if you are watching AI models like I am, you’ll see that they’re only arguably a bit better. The analog method of forecasting beat them like Scarlett O’Hara’s mule for the early cold, and another major battle is evolving in front of us for 2 weeks ago models were singing a winter’s over tune, and now they are coming around to our analog ideas about January.

Obviously, a tool that can summon facts quickly and advise on an answer is great. Just beware what you are being fed here. Including NOAA headlines about their AI’s, but most importantly, understanding that just because you get an AI to admit your point, it doesn’t mean it will become part of its database.

Someone once said, “it’s not who votes that matters, but who counts the votes.”

With the AIs what really matters is who is feeding it the information. And given statements like what that eminent climate giant John Kerry just said:

“You know, there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc. But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence,”

They are not going away, and they are going to make darn sure they control the AI’s. The goal is to push AI’s as the answer ( be it NOAA headlines) and then make you naturally accept their authority.

The only solution: challenge authority!