Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Study Finds Climate Change Models “Run Hot”

Study Finds Climate Change Models “Run Hot”

The UN IPCC’s head may have been running “hot”, too!

Researchers now claim global warming predictions are greatly exaggerated. (This is not surprising to those of us climate change skeptics.)

What is shocking is that the findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal and are now actually being covered by some media. The UK Daily Mail has a review of the study:

Since 1990, scientists have used complex models to predict how climate change and manmade greenhouse emissions will affect the world.

But a team of experts – including an astrophysicist, statistician, and geography professor – has claimed these models ‘very greatly exaggerate’ the effects of global warming.

Using a simpler, solar-based model, the researchers arrived at figures that are more than half those previously predicted.

The paper, ‘Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model’, was written by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware David Legates, and statistician Dr Matt Briggs.

It has been peer reviewed and is published in the journal Science Bulletin.

Interestingly, one of the scientists who authored the paper has a connection to Cornell. Dr. Matt Briggs, who has a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics from that university, has been the focus of a lot of heat from global warming advocates. He explained the smear campaign to Stephen K. Bannon on Breitbart News Sunday.

Chairman Bannon asked Briggs how he reacts to all the “smug” entertainers, celebrities, personalities, and others who assert that global warming is a settled science. Briggs responded by explaining that what is settled, “is the fundamental, unshakable scientific principle, that if you have a theory that makes bad predictions, that theory must be wrong. And we have had lousy predictions from these climate models for years and years and years. Something must be wrong. This is undeniable.”

Briggs elaborated that his paper has been downloaded 10,000 times, making it one of the most downloaded reports on climate change ever. But the statistician acknowledged that a lot of money and careers are on the line, largely relying on the premise that the planet is heating up.

Consequently, he said, reporters from the aforementioned media outlets have done their best to smear the authors’ names. Moreover, they made attempts to get Soon and Legates fired from their jobs. Accusations were made that the authors wrote the paper for financial gains. Yet, no money was ever given or received for writing it. Briggs said the reporters “did not want to believe the truth I was telling them.”

Studies such as this one often do not get funded; or, when they manage to find the money, the peer journals refuse to approve data that doesn’t agree with the current “consensus.”

Paired with this story is the news that the NASA climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.

If this isn’t enough to get you hot under the collar, just wait—there’s even steamier news breaking from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its head has now resigned over sexual harassment charges.

Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the United Nations’ body that’s tasked with studying climate change and its supposed effects, resigned from his post Tuesday amid charges that he sexually harassed one of his employees.

The Guardian reported that Mr. Pachauri has denied the charges made by a 29-year-old woman who works at his research institute in Delhi, India.

But he also said the charges would interfere in his work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has therefore stepped down, The Hill reported.

“The IPCC needs strong leadership and dedication of time and full attention by the chair in the immediate future, which under the current circumstance I am unable to provide,” he said in a resignation letter to U.S. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Yes, I suppose promoting bad science to force substantial modification in human behaviors and global markets would be a full time job! In fact, they are so busy touting their version of climate change that the United Nations currently has no plans to investigate the allegations.

Bonus! The Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is proceeding full-steam to achieve “universal agreement on climate change”, deeply flawed models notwithstanding.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It’s about money and power. Always.

I cannot say how many times I repeat this phrase during history lessons. Hopefully, by the time my daughter is an adult, she will have internalized this truth and will not be a sheep. Please, God.

    gregjgrose in reply to Anonamom. | February 25, 2015 at 11:56 am

    [T]he overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. … Governments stand to gain trillions of dollars in revenue and unprecedented power if voters in the U.S. and other Western countries can be stampeded into ceding more power to them, based on transparently bad science. –John Hinderaker

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/the-smearing-of-willie-soon.php?PageSpeed=noscript

    It is about money and power, but under the leadership of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and the Center for American Progress, the US and the rest of the developed countries have released the related toxic vision. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/dwelling-in-a-void-of-unknowing-within-a-sculpted-narrative-designed-to-manipulate/ The vision is that starting at the UN level and going down to the local like mayors and city councils, governments at all levels are now to ‘steer’ the economy and society.

    The related UN vision is called Dignity for All by 2030 and was quietly issued by Ban Ki-Moon in December 2014. It is covered in the previous post to that one.

    The entire education remake that goes under the banner of the Common Core and 21st century learning is also tied to these toxic visions as those reports make clear. It’s more than funding grants involved although those are greatly beloved and guide much that goes on in higher ed especially.

    MattMusson in reply to Anonamom. | February 25, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    Money, Power and Bad Science.

    Comparing reading from 10,000 weather stations today to non-existant weather stations 400 years ago – means you have to plug for data that does not exist. And depending upon what you plug in you can show global warming or global cooling. But ITS NOT REAL DATA. It’s just made up.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to MattMusson. | February 25, 2015 at 3:23 pm

      In other words?

      FAKE GARBAGE IN, FAKE GARAGE OUT!

      Is it time to “cook” Al Gore with his Trillion$ yet?

      Bruce Hayden in reply to MattMusson. | February 26, 2015 at 2:07 am

      Except that we don’t have 10,000 recording sites – my understanding is that it is more in the hundreds. And, that, in itself is an issue, since the recording sites tend to be clumped around metropolitan areas (even ignoring what they have done to assume away the urban heat island effect). Which means that places like the NE portion of this country, or parts of Europe, are grossly overrepresented, and much of the rest of the world is grossly underrepresented, where huge swathes of Australia, northern Canada, or Siberia are represented by one or two sites. And, Antarctica is maybe worse. You have dozens of sites in the NE, and swathes of the world larger than that with maybe one site. And, that doesn’t even consider the problems of taking temperatures in the ocean. No – they don’t treat them the same, but instead have to interpolate over much of the world from the nearest sites (often many hundreds of miles away).

      I should add that it has long been known that there has been a lot of fudging going on with those interpolations – most famously when the interpolated results of parts of Australia didn’t match the actual readings from the (few) sites there in the interior. And, the Russians seem to be saying that the same has been going on with much of the data that they have provided.

“Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the United Nations’ body that’s tasked with studying climate change and its supposed effects, resigned from his post Tuesday amid charges that he sexually harassed one of his employees.”

I thought that enviro-nazis were opposed to laying pipe, willy-nilly…

    It appears that “the head of the United Nations’ body that’s tasked with studying climate change and its supposed effects” was ‘probing’ the effects of climate change on a human subject to prepare for his next presentation.

    It also appears that, notwithstanding “The Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is proceeding full-steam to achieve “universal agreement on climate change…” (perhaps in the same manner as his colleague but this time asking for consent?)

    The monetizable topic of “climate change” gets some guys all heated up. These same guys, like the climate, are so fickle.

      Lotsa, lotsa chakras need releasing.

      Just ask OwlGore. Apparently, being an anti-science, international druidic high priest (and filthy rich from it) is very, very stressful. One needs the tender ministrations of the alter-maidens.

      “You can help me save the planet, babeee. Wanna hold my Nobel?”

        OwlGore? Or is it Al Gore-acle? The high priest of the secular Church who predicts the future states of philosophy and unacknowledged faith.

        That said, carbon credits. Carbon credits for sale. Indulgences sold at clearance prices. Save the planet. Save your soul. Throw another baby on the barby. Two for one sale. Obamacare and Anthropogenic Global Warming for one soul… I mean vote.

NC Mountain Girl | February 25, 2015 at 10:39 am

It’s worse than that. In his letter of resignation Pachauri is said to have called climate change ” his religion and dharma”.

    joethefatman in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | February 25, 2015 at 10:42 am

    You beat me to it.

    “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

    Rajendra Pachauri

    The religion of Gaia

    Mark Steyn notes that same point.

    Very decent of Rajendra to have conceded that point, that indeed it’s not science but religion.

    And since our government cannot force us to adhere to or monetarily support any particular religion, can we not just call it a day on this whole business?

Dear NYTs,

Can we keep this info away from my liberal friends?

Its very entertaining to watch them get all smug and arrogant with their ignorance, claiming they Love Science! while calling us “deniers”.

I’ve been so looking forward to the day it dawns on them that *they* are ignorant rubes they thought they were mocking and demonizing. And I’d like to draw that out a bit longer.

Thanks! (you hacks)

    Can we keep this info away from my liberal friends?

    No problem. The libtards follow the MSM, exclusively. The MSM will not publish this report.

    And they don’t just Love Science!, they Love Science In A Carnal Way Beginning With F!

    Truly I cringe when I see their pathetic “not science but science-y” memes and clickbait polluting my FB feed. “Germany Now Produces Half Of Its Energy Using Solar!” (well they may have, for 20 minutes in the middle of the day one particularly sunny low-demand public holiday last summer…)

Timmy, when I was your age, the government used to send people to jail for fraud.

Noblesse Oblige | February 25, 2015 at 11:20 am

Yet the current occupant of the White House continues to lie to us about the alleged upcoming disaster. Yeah, and you can keep your doctor.

“Climate science” is not science. It is a money-making scheme run by religious wackos.

Many corrupt governments around the world keep functioning somehow, even when their corruption is totally exposed. Fortunately the military in Egypt arrested Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood buddy Morsi, and brought back some order. Apparently it really is possible to charge a president for crimes.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24772806

It may take that to rein in the DC criminals that seem to run multiple criminal operations from the very top. The global warming fraud has been exposed repeatedly, yet our Secretary of State still says it is a top priority … not to stop the fraud, but to enrich it.

Then we have the open borders, human/drug trafficking … Holder lied to Congress about the ~2500 guns to cartels, held in contempt means nothing, he is still top cop. Lynch oversaw a sweetheart deal for HSBC, claiming she didn’t realize they were laundering money for the cartels. No one ever goes to jail, they get promoted.

There are many levels of BS in Climategate …. CO2 is not “carbon”, it is the answer to reversing desertification, growing better food on less ground, etc. True conservationists LOVE more CO2. A little warming makes life better for the freezing poor in many regions, though one degree a century is a blip.

Other forces are much more dominant than CO2 increase, and even destroying our economy would not slow global CO2 increases. It is not just enviro-whackoes that want the US crippled with “carbon laws”, it is our economic enemies. They will gladly pound their dirty shoe on the UN table, insisting America reduce its productive capitalist footprint, but they want us to keep buying their product produced via dirty coal.

The science really is pretty settled … or at least it is settled that the warmists have hidden their faked data, and lied at every turn, but still rake in the bucks.

It’s like when someone gets a ticket “fixed” … any lame alibi will do .. the fix is in. It doesn’t matter how many times we catch them if they still keep all the funding, under cover of “new improved model” alibis. Maybe our military will have to intervene like Egypt’s did. I think many of them already see Obama as a domestic enemy, in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, cheating on Christian America.

Kerry is almost right … stopping global warming … FRAUD, is a top issue, as it is the means seditious bureaucrats use to control our industry. (in my opinion)

    Next, Al-Sisi will confront the terrorists in Libya, saving Libyans, and inconvenient Americans, from the consequences of “liberation”. Perhaps he will even stem the proliferation of Gaddafi’s arsenal to the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations.

Even the IPCC admits that the system under investigation is composed of non-linear, coupled chaotic processes, thereby requiring application of the scientific method that strictly limits assessments in both time and space. While inference through estimation or modeling can provide useful insight, it is not itself a valid method for discernment outside of the philosophical or faith domains.

    DaveGinOly in reply to n.n. | February 25, 2015 at 6:23 pm

    A fancy way of saying simulations/models can only test how a theory of a phenomenon might work in the real world, but doesn’t actually prove that’s the case. This has always been the problem with “climate change” alarmist science – all computerized simulations are nothing more than a possible (and not even necessarily probable) explanation for global warming (if that phenomenon actually exists).

    Remember “Lamarckism” from high school biology class? This was one theory of evolution, i.e., it was a theory explaining how evolution might operate. In its time, it was the primary explanation, accepted by many scientists, of the mechanism of evolution. It was also completely wrong. Theories, by themselves, prove nothing. They must be tested against the real world.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to n.n. | February 26, 2015 at 2:09 am

    See my comments below. Models can provide important insights – if they accurately predict the future (and the past). These don’t. Which means that they are little better than throwing darts against the wall.

“The IPCC needs strong leadership and dedication of time and full attention by the chair in the immediate future, which under the current circumstance I am unable to provide,” he said in a resignation letter to U.S. [sic] Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

This is standard boilerplate BS, implying that this is all just an excuse to ease him out. So, why did they really decide he had to go? Was it before or after his statement that Warmunism is his “religion”? A fundamental feature of the whole Warmunist fraud is that is it being sold as “science”, not faith.

Somewhere, in a snow storm, ManBearPig is crying …

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to MikeInCA. | February 25, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    We should send him to Boston.

    Boston doesn’t have enough “Snow Jobs” yet this winter!

Sure, billions of tax payer money has been wasted, so much that certain scientists have sold their objectivity (and thus, the very backbone of science), and sure, the predictions are bogus, and sure, the predictions miraculously align with local, national, and global progressive plans, but dammit, they claim their intentions are good, so that should be enough, you fact-obsessed deniers. Sheesh.

On a serious note, Pachauri is the clown who flew from New York to India for the weekend to watch a cricket practice. And then he lectures us about the size of our carbon footprint.

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/heat-on-cricket-pitch-warms-this-climate-change-laureate/231802/

He was a fraud all along, no surprise he’s also a creep.

Here’s how a leftist can salvage GW theory using logic:

The current model purporting to prove global warming is falling apart, destroyed by better evidence pointing otherwise along with evidence showing data fraud. Fine, then. Our side loses. But, all you deniers have done is to disprove *our* set of evidence and *our* theory proving global warming. This is no way disproves global warming, however. Though we have failed to prove our case in this first effort, it does not follow that global warming therefore does not exist. Which brings me to crux of our next attempt, which is to demand climate deniers to prove that global warming is not real. I’m a liberal, for whom the needs of my ideology trumps reason, logic, or sound science, therefore I feel no shame in standing on my pedestal of pretend science while I demand the deniers prove a negative. We hold irrelevant the fact that scientifically proving a negative is as close to impossible as it gets. Our ideology trumps such trifles.

(This is precisely the illogic employed by UFO, bigfoot, crop circle, etc., believers – it is their job to make the claim that something not in evidence is real, and they assign to deniers the responsibility for proving these things AREN’T real – and if they fail, by golly, then it’s real! I fully expect the current AGW movement to shift the burden of proof to deniers. Look for it. It’s coming).

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 25, 2015 at 7:17 pm

    I hope passing that left you with hemorrhoids. Justice.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | February 25, 2015 at 9:38 pm

      It did sting a bit.

      We’ll see now how many/which of them are True Believers in AGW and which realize AGW is just a ruse for exerting governmental control. The latter will retreat and put together some other approach or find some other horse to ride towards the same goal of increased governmental control. The True Believers are the ones who will shift the burden of proof to AGW deniers.

    Henry, as my 4 children were growing up and occasionally* being fed this garbage in school, I would always present them with the 4 questions:

    1. Is the world heating up, yes or no?
    2. If yes, is it good or bad?
    3. If bad, is it manmade or natural heating?
    4. If manmade, is it worse than living in a cave?

    This always put the lies in perspective.

    *most of their teachers were actually “deniers” 🙂
    I am a trained meteorologist / climatologist, having studied this in my university years… It was usually easy pickens to thwart the few nutcase leftwing teachers on this subject.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Barry. | February 25, 2015 at 9:46 pm

      I had a tilt with a high school science teacher who taught that a scientific theory is basically a guess that scientists try to find evidence for and that they call it the ‘theory’ of evolution because there’s no proof of it. Yikes. A science teacher.

      Interest varied, but I taught all my kids critical thinking skills, common logic fallacies, and the scientific method. Ran a website including it for 10-12 years ending 2007 or so. My kids all still speak to me, though one daughter remains upset over her now former belief in psychics, the ‘real’ ones, not the telephone psychics.

À propos Briggs’ comments, Larry Solomon’s book “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud … And those who are too fearful to do so” is still, to me, the best “explainer” on that subject.

It came out a while ago, and I think it’s out of print, but used copies are available via Amazon.

“(It is a) fundamental, unshakable scientific principle, that if you have a theory that makes bad predictions, that theory must be wrong. And we have had lousy predictions from these climate models for years and years and years. Something must be wrong. This is undeniable.”

I’ve been saying this for years and years and years. It’s been known for a long time that if you plug historical data into any of the climate models, they are not capable of rendering current conditions, demonstrating without doubt that they are incapable of making reliable predictions. The fact that every climate science research group creates its own climate model also informs us that climate researchers have no faith in the accuracy or predictive power of each other’s models!

None of this should be surprising. Climate models depend entirely on the amount of sensitivity (“forcing”) built into them, and critics have argued that the forcing has been tuned higher than any reasonable, fact-based tuning should admit. It also shouldn’t be surprising that if you create a climate model that’s sensitive to the number of houses painted blue, that if you add more blue houses to the simulation, the virtual climate will respond to the input. This doesn’t mean that the real world works this way, only that the model does. Climate models can only show how something may work in the real world – they cannot prove that the real world actually works in that way.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 26, 2015 at 1:57 am

    The problem, as I see it, is that the actual calculations are infeasible, and will be infeasible for the foreseeable future, even assuming that Moore’s law continues to hold (which it really can’t). We are talking some very basic computational problems, the type that have million dollar prizes if ever solved.

    So, we are left with models that grossly simplify the problem. If someone could design a model that adequately predicted the future, and the past, then the simplifications that went into the model may well be accurate assumptions. But, of course, that didn’t happen.

    The big problem though is that a lot of people, including a lot of political decision makers, have confused the models with reality. They are attempts to greatly simplify reality through a bunch of parameterizations and assumptions. And, they have failed, which says to me that the parameterizations and assumptions are not accurate. Or, the models using them aren’t. In any case, they have little scientific merit, because they are demonstrably wrong. They have not been able to predict the future, and are even worse with the past.

    As a note – it is fairly straight forward to fit a curve to a set of points as long as you have almost as many parameters or coefficients as you have data points. That seems to have been what some did. And kept adding coefficients and parameters each time that that the model failed a prediction. Fairly straight forward mathematics, but of little predictive value.

We have:
“Fox legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said Sharia Law would override American law if both parties consent to abide by the decision of the court.” (Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/29/15)
and
“NSA Official: ISIS Terror Cells in US ‘Probable'” (Newsmax.com)
and
“What ISIS Really Wants. The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.” (The Atlantic, March, 2015)
and
“ISIS is the biggest threat the civilized world has ever known” (many)

Yet:
“Obama: ISIS no greater threat to future than climate change” (CNN Jan 21, 2015)
and
“Forget ISIS, Hillary Says Climate Change is World’s Greatest Threat” (September 5, 2014)

Might all this global warming hype be political? Damn right it is. The global warming cult begin a little before Gore’s time with the Democrats hyping environmentalism more than usual. Would a U.N. committee of any sort have had such impact in the U.S., ergo the world, without that hype? Especially a U.N. organization such as IPCC which has been proven without a doubt to be corrupt on several occasions in the last few years. Yet, with people like Obama and Hillary leading the way, eager to promote the IPCC’s false information instead of confronting real, hear and now problems like ISIS, the media continues to sensationalize a myth.

If all these green freaks are so paranoid about CO2 they can always do the world a favor and stop producing it…permanently.

Meanwhile, the earth has not warmed in 18 years and 3 months, according to RSS Lower Troposphere satellite temperature data.

see: http://www.remss.com/research/climate

Note how the global temperature predictions (Figure 1) are ramping up and the actual global temperature is flat since 1997.

see: http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend