An analysis of the climate models used by global warming advocates to illustrate the consequences of climate change finds them to be totally useless.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Climate fraud: An analysis of the climate models used by global warming advocates to illustrate the consequences of climate change finds them to be totally useless.

These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [emphasis added]

Share

3 comments

  • Garbage in, garbage out. I have made a living preparing, reviewing, completing, presenting statistic analysis of data for several years. Even the most unbiased review of data and projections into the future often leads to incorrect conclusions. But that doesn’t mean we reject analysis as a tool of predicting the future.

    The key here is that the climate data models of the globalclimatewarmingchange crowd is that these models are designed to produce a desired political and economic outcome (emphasis on political).

    Now we have actual climate data for the past 12-13+ years showing the models don’t work (carbon dioxide up and temperatures flat to down) and it is now apparent these models should be heavily criticized as wrong, their authors called out as biased ‘scientists’.

    Now, we will see if the current actual climate data is fed back into these models and if the political ‘scientists’ adjust their models to more closely match reality. I suspect these religious zealots will innovate a new way to sell and impose their moral view of the world’s climate and political systems on the rest of us.

    The Earth and life will go on. I choose to put my money elsewhere.

  • Rene,

    You wrote: “I suspect these religious zealots will innovate a new way to sell and impose their moral view of the world’s climate and political systems on the rest of us.”

    You are correct, and the “new way” they have come up with to impose their politics on us is “extreme weather”. See my essay, The fantasy of extreme weather, from April 11, 2013.

  • Jeffrey

    In your recap, you say the models are “totally useless”. The scientists in the linked article say “close to useless”. So, as long as they aren’t “totally” useless, they need to scare us all into become true believers. I’m sure that some day they will be recognized for their total uselessness. But, right now, there’s too much money/politics invested in climate change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *