Can we start putting these thieves on trial?
Responses from the usual suspects will be limited to mostly two variations: a) the changes we forced down everyone’s throats saved us, or b) that’s hateful, shut up.
Also garbage data like urban heat islands.
Also that pesky sun that somehow decides to go billiard ball smooth every now and then, its lack of spots giving us a cooler earth (even almanacs know this).
I think the Al Gore phenomenon revealed to the world where it had really put its faith, and that was in man’s endeavors not God’s. If the world will take warning then it will get blessed again, after all these decades of curses that were its own fault.
This will be ignored by the MSM but is hardly a surprise. The ‘global warming’ scam has been exposed so many times yet Obama and the left keep pretending it’s real and we must DO SOMETHING, like destroy the coal industry and waste billions on schemes to generate electric power from sunbeams and wind Seriously?
Hmm...114 out of 117 wildly inaccurate. That’s a “consensus”, I suppose. BTT
Wait a minute here, I thought the ‘science’ was ‘settled’.
You will notice that NOT ONE of these models underestimated the warming. They all overestimated it to some degree. Which means that the model is completely unreliable and that the model was designed to get the results that the “scientists” wanted.
The computer climate models did exactly what they were programmed to do.
Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.
Sorry, but no.
Some scientists need to recognize that computer modelling is not science. These models are very useful hypothesis-generating devices, but outside of a very limited range, they have no predictive value. Even with perfect data, they can't predict the past.
It's like all the nonsense we see from the public health community, based on epidemiological studies. It looks like science, and sounds like science, but it's not science.
File under “D” for “Duh”.
Maybe the climate modelers should use more science and less fiction.
Indiscreet was made in 1958.
This line is spoken at 24:40 in the film, which happens to be currently available on YouTube.
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models (see Supplementary Information). These models generally simulate natural variability — including that associated with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions — as well as estimate the combined response of climate to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol abundance (of sulphate, black carbon and organic carbon, for example), ozone concentrations (tropospheric and stratospheric), land use (for example, deforestation) and solar variability. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty (Fig. 1a).
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming2–4.
The divergence between observed and CMIP5- simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends from 1970–2012 (Fig. 2a and 2b for 20-year and 15-year running trends, respectively).
The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.
The sky is blue.
Bears live in the woods.
The Pope is STILL Catholic.
It's AMAZING to me that people still swallow the tainted GoreBall Warming swill.
The alarmists are now claiming that the heat is out there, but it’s just hiding. I kid you not.
government doesn't work and must be abolished except for military and border control.
there is record ice growth in the Arctic during this summer. I think the ice sheet grew by 60% over last year. and for 30 years the government has been funding fake studies to create the global warming hoax. the media has been screeching global warming for 30 years. it's all to destroy capitalism, destroy our freedom and our economy
This year record ice growth in the Arctic , the ice sheet is advancing.
Global warming is a hoax created by government funding 30 years of fake research.
This year is the latest that a hurricane has taken to form
Now if we could just study the estimates of global warming with who is paying for the studies, I would bet that the correlation is 100%.