Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Politics | Tags: Democrat Lies/Dirty Tricks, Environment
Many of us more skeptical types have wondered how it is the proponents of the “man-made” global warming theory can accurately predict the state of Earth’s climate 25, 50 or 100 years from now, when meteorologists aren’t even all that good at predicting the weather later in the week.
Well, as it turns out, they can’t.
All the global warming predictions you have heard — from Al Gore, to the UN, to Democrat presidential candidates trying to whip up fear of irreparable environemental damage for political gain — are based on computer programs called “models” into which current climate data is entered and the programs then “predict” future climate conditions.
The problem is, they don’t work!
A new study published in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology tested those very models. In order to figure out if those models were indeed reliable, scientists from the University of Alabama and the University of Virginia entered known historical data to see if the models could “predict” current climate conditions.
All 22 climate models failed!
Not one of the 22 models that were the complete basis for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Report accurately predicted the present day climate when they entered historical figures that are known to be accurate.
In other words, every single prediction you hear or have heard regarding future global warming is bogus, false, and untrue.
This study wipes out the entire industry of climate-prediction.
Yes, the Earth seems to have warmed. But there is no longer any evidence whatsoever that the planet will continue to warm — only theories — and those theories just lost their biggest claim to credibility.
Indeed, not only is there no longer any evidence that the Earth will continue to warm, to the contrary, the global temerature hasn’t changed since 2001!
This is a major story. People all around the globe claim in polls to be highly concerned about global warming. Yet, have you heard about this study from any “mainstream” media news source? No, of course not. And you won’t.
The only question remaining then, is why does anyone continue to trust them?
(hat tip: American Thinker)
14 Comments so far
Leave a comment
American Elephants 
[…] If you want to know more about the evidence for global warming, check out this post on Global Warming Predicitons at American […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Global Something « Significant Pursuit by Renaissance Guy January 3, 2008 @ 11:16 pm[…] that the “models” environmentalists have been basing all their predictions on, can’t even accurately predict the current climate… which means they can’t predict […]
LikeLike
Pingback by It’s the Sun, Stupid! « American Elephants February 21, 2008 @ 12:32 amI think we need to reduce water vapor in the atmosphere by covering the oceans. After all, water vapor is the main green house gas isn’t it?
LikeLike
Comment by Pete August 21, 2008 @ 7:36 amThese eco-freaks are realy realy stupid maybe they should get stranded in the wilderness and get eaten by some animals becuase the greens are certianly stupid
LikeLike
Comment by Mad Bluebird November 21, 2008 @ 10:32 am[…] can’t. How do I know? The Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology tested 22 climate models by feeding them historical data to see if they could predict present day climate. All 22 failed. To […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Goalposts and Predictions | Skeptics Global Warming November 25, 2008 @ 2:28 pmRead Mark Lynas’s response:
http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/01/global-warming-lynas-climate
LikeLike
Comment by SomeOne January 24, 2009 @ 11:25 pmMark Lynas is a journalist and an environmental activist. I have read his stuff before. Global atmospheric temperature reached its peak in 1998, but has not increased since 1995. It has been cooling since 2002. The computer climate models have been pretty thoroughly debunked (see the comment from skeptics global warming above). There is still a lot we don’t understand in the effects of clouds, the Pacific decadal oscillation. The computer models try to account for what is not known with assumptions, and if you change an assumption a tiny bit, you get a completely different answer. The so-called skeptics base their comments on observed science. The IPCC reports have been discredited.
Useful websites are http://www.climatedebatedaily.com, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/, or http://www.icecap.us/index.php
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child January 25, 2009 @ 3:09 am1. David Whitehouse doesn’t say that it hasn’t increased since 1995, only since 2001. Where are you getting the figure that there hasn’t been an increase since 1995?
2. Explain the sentence, “Global atmospheric temperature reached its peak in 1998, but has not increased since 1995”. If it hasn’t increased since 1995, how could it have reached a peak in 1998? I guess you meant that it reached its peak in 1995, and started cooling after 1998. Where’s your evidence?
3. You cherry-pick your views. Why believe the study that discredits the models, and not the study that “used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets [and] concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data”?
4. There’s virtually a unanimous agreement among climatologists that global warming is real and that humans contribute to it significantly: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
Are they ALL wrong? These are top scientists in many areas related to this issue.
5. Isn’t it odd that all the global warming skeptics don’t publish their articles in peer reviewed journals? I mean, if the data supports their claim, why do they always publish them in groups they have formed, policy groups publications with a specific ideological bent, and we rarely see from them any serious scholarly work?
LikeLike
Comment by SomeOne January 25, 2009 @ 3:43 amThere is not a unanimous agreement among climate scientists by a long shot. The UN’s IPCC was designed, from the very beginning, to prove that there was man made global warming, and that it was dangerous to man. This is not “we will study the science and see IF there is global warming, IF it is anthropogenic, or IF is is other than a natural event. We know that the earth has always been warming or cooling. We know that there was a medieval warm period when wine grapes grew in England and Vikings farmed in Greenland. We know about past ice ages and the Little Ice Age which lasted from 1300 to around 1850. The sums of money involved in promoting global warming alarmism are vast, and a big reason for all the trouble European economies are in.
Michael Mann, who came up with the famed “hockey stick” tried to eliminate the medieval warm period with his computer climate period, but observed science proved him wrong, as well as literary evidence. The people who lived then wrote about it.
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/25/horse-hockey-climate-scientology-%E2%80%9Cgetting-rid%E2%80%9D-of-the-medieval-warming-period/ This article explains.
Look, you can believe in climate computer models that begin with what is known and then enter assumptions and guesses, because there remains much that is not known. I choose to believe the scientists who depend on observed science, and speak frankly about what is not known. The IPCC reports are not written by scientists, but by politicians. Many IPCC scientists have resigned, others have just discredited the reports.
The figures on temperatures came directly from an article by Australian climatologist Bob Carter, an article I was reading yesterday, available at Dr.Jennifer Marohasy’s blog noted above. I would have used the 1998 figure, but I was just reading Dr. Carter’s article. I recommend highly Dr. Roy Spencer’s book “Climate Confusion” which is good reading (he has a good sense of humor and the book is short on graphs) Nigel Lawson’s elegant little book “An Appeal to Reason” and for an understanding of the deception behind the effort to keep the public misinformed Christopher Horner’s “Red Hot Lies”. You misunderstand the term “peer reviewed” There are many other posts on climate change/global warming at this website. Click on The elephant’s child in the sidebar for a complete list of my posts.
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child January 25, 2009 @ 5:18 pmThe search function on this website is the blank panel just above HOPE in the sidebar. Enter “global warming” or “climate change” in the bar and click “enter”. You will see that it’s a frequent subject for me. Some posts are obviously more comprehensive than others.
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child January 25, 2009 @ 5:24 pmThere isn’t a single scientific body of national or international standing that rejects the basic findings of the IPCC. If you don’t believe me, check this impressive list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.
Are they all wrong? Are all these groups partisan politicians with an agenda as you suggest regarding the IPCC?
Regarding the claim that global warming stopped in 1998, see here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm and here http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/07/no-warming-since-1998-get-real-deniers. These links explain that you’re mistaken.
Not sure what this medieval warm period is supposed to prove. We can all agree that during that time Europe experienced warming. So what? How does that disprove the evidence that greenhouse gases are chiefly responsible for the warming we’re experiencing?
LikeLike
Comment by SomeOne January 25, 2009 @ 8:46 pmYour first sentence is simply false. Some lead scientists on the IPCC panel reject the basic findings of the IPCC. Science is not a matter of consensus. Science depends on who is right, which is proved by evidence. The IPCC’s reports have depended on Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”, which has been completely discredited. See Andrew Bostom above. The ‘projections’ of computer climate programs don’t agree with reality. Since you use a computer, surely you have heard of GIGO — garbage in garbage out.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Activists change any input from climate skeptics almost as soon as they are entered.
!.Do you believe observed, provable science; or do you believe a computer projection? 2. What is the right temperature? If we are wildly concerned about what was less than one degree of warming over an entire century, and that has disappeared because of the current cooling, then? So, since the climate has always warmed and cooled, what is the right temperature that we are aiming for? 3.Meteorologists can predict the weather about 7 days out, sometimes. 4.There are billions of dollars, career success or failure, salaries, prestige and vast sums to be made by corporations involved on the side of the true believers. The skeptics really have no financial involvement at all.
What is the major greenhouse gas? Water vapor, in the form of clouds. CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, and what there is comes from the oceans, not SUV tailpipes. There is some anthropogenic influence, but so little that it can hardly be measured. Increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature, therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of any warming.
I’ve given suggestions for study. Do some reading before you come back to argue. You seem more interested in arguing than in learning.
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child January 25, 2009 @ 10:12 pm1. The sentence is 100% right. Read it again: “There isn’t a single scientific body of national or international standing that rejects the basic findings of the IPCC”. I’m not referring to individual scientists but to scientific bodies. If you think Wikipedia is wrong, can you show me ONE scientific body of national or international standing that rejects the basic findings of the IPCC?
2. Can you give me the names of the lead IPCC members who reject the IPCC findings? Aside from Michaels.
3. Of course science is not determined by vote, but when there is a consensus, or something very close to a consensus, the probability that this is right is much higher than not.
4. In the rest of your reply you make many assertions that are highly debatable. Needless to say, again, the scientific community, by and large, disagrees with you on that.
LikeLike
Comment by SomeOne January 25, 2009 @ 10:41 pmWhat is a “scientific body of national or international standing”? The UN’s IPCC is supposedly one such, but the information on which they base their findings has been proven to be false. There is no “consensus” in science. If there is consensus, it isn’t science. Scientific bodies of international reputation have a long history of being wrong. Some in the scientific community disagree with me, some do not. So?
One would think that it would be good news that we do not have to fear “global warming” because it is a natural phenomenon. One would think that someone who would choose to believe a computer projection, prediction, far into the future rather than the observations of supremely qualified scientists of real phenomenon here in the real world, would grasp that they are on, so to speak, very thin ice. Go away and do some research on your own. Read the science instead of people who blather about consensus.
LikeLike
Comment by The Elephant's Child January 26, 2009 @ 1:37 am