Twenty years of overestimated warming…

For decades, global warming models have consistently and universally overestimated the degree of climate warming.

A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

“Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told
“Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row… what that means is that it’s time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.

Of course being a warming alarmist means never having to be correct. You just keep on making the same, incorrect predictions and the same people keep on believing you.

Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Twenty years of overestimated warming…

  1. Uke says:

    A typical scientific organization that was wrong this consistently would typically be discredited and shunned from the community, never to return again.

  2. Rockheim says:

    A typical one yes.. But this is no ordinary scientific organziation!! These are the Climate Change Warriors!!

    And it’s not just these models that are wrong. There’s a simple check to be done in quality control for any kind of predictive statistical analysis. And that is to run said model on a known quantity and verify the results against reality.
    These models take decades worth of data and make predictions out decades into the future.. There isn’t a climate model in use that has EVER passed such a test.
    Meaning you can feed these models everything you know about the climate, atmospheric samplings, temperatures, etc from 1800-1950.. And they will all universally fail at even coming close to predicting 1950-present day.
    Now this would tell a normal person that the model is horribly flawed and that it needs to be rewritten. But not if your an AGW pusher!! No no.. What that means is that there was something wrong with the CLIMATE.. that NATURE wasn’t accurately responding and that there was some other influence that was masking the real result.. Which, as we all know, is armageddon..

    This isn’t rocket surgery here. These are things that the layperson can see for themselves.. questions that less than the most brilliant scientific minds can come up with.. And the only answers we get when we bring them up.. We’re radicals. Paid oil company shills.. Deniers. etc.

    I ran the maths one day. Bear in mind.. I hate math. So not only was I angry that I was being lied to by these so called “scientists” but making me do math was pushing me toward a murderous rage.. But it all shook out like this.. The warmists claim that we need to reduce our Co2 output to levels that were present in the 60’s at the bare minimum to slow this progression of run away climate change. Now.. The idiots will look back at the 60’s, and even the warmists made comment, were things so bad back then? People had TV’s.. Cars.. Radios.. And now all the newer technology is all teh more efficient.. so it would be even easier.. Would it hurt us to make that small sacrifice for humanity? And those of us with a working brain stood up and said.. “Just a minute there professor..”

    Using readily available data (and I’ll try to dig up one of my old posts where I laid it all out) you can chart that the global per capita emission of Co2 was X. Using nothing but the difference in global population then vs now means that each person is allowed to only emit X – a WHOLE lot.. What’s a whole lot? What kind of numbers are we talking about? Well.. to GLOBALLY emit the same levels of Co2 means that we’d be allowed to burn a single 60w equivalent CFL bulb for 4 hrs per day.. Drive a Prius for 3000 miles per year on mostly electric power.. and breathe.
    We couldn’t manufacture those bulbs or those Prius’s. We couldn’t heat our homes. We couldn’t do ANYTHING other than exist.. have a couple hours of CFL light per day and drive locally for all our needs. No manufacturing. No businesses. No stores. No cell phones. No internet. No computers. Nothing. And that would only be until the population increased again.
    But then.. Without hospitals, schools to train doctors, farms to raise food, clothing, shelter, etc.. the population wouldn’t grow would it? So.. perhaps in a decade or so we could have an extra hour of light at night. Wouldn’t that be swell?

    I will never understand the leftist ideas of pushing of AGW and how we must prepare and pay to deal with it.

    It’s like 2 competing lines of reasoning to deal with climate change.

    One school of thought says that climate change is real. It’s going to happen as it always has throughout the history of the planet. In order to deal with more rain we should spend our money building a shelter to stay dry.

    The other school of thought says that Climate change is real. Mankind is making it worse.. and the way we deal with it is to spend our money trying to make it stop raining. Beause nothing alters the global climate like money..

    • notamobster says:

      “…nothing alters the global climate like money..” 🙂

    • Uke says:

      The third school, which you forgot about, is summed up by the phrase “Kill All Humans.” Eco nuts are cool with that, since they see us as a plague upon Mother Gaia.”

  3. trebor snoyl says:

    To Eco Nut….you first.