95% of all climate models agree: The observations must be wrong.
“95% of all climate models agree: The observations must be wrong.”
I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc. These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).
When 90 different climate model predictions are compared with the actual data, all but two vastly overestimate the amount of heating that has occurred since 1979. In other words, these models are wrong, they are undependable, and they shouldn’t be used to decide policy by any politician.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
“95% of all climate models agree: The observations must be wrong.”
I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc. These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).
When 90 different climate model predictions are compared with the actual data, all but two vastly overestimate the amount of heating that has occurred since 1979. In other words, these models are wrong, they are undependable, and they shouldn’t be used to decide policy by any politician.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in this year has the propaganda mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuse to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
Science practiced like theologians or science practiced like skeptics…well, .it’s obvious which way the “consensus” currently practices.
How pathetic. They’ve relied so heavily on their computer modeling in the name of their credibility, their grants and their agenda that they can’t or won’t see the proverbial forest from the trees.
If I were to make up 90 different climate predictions and two of them were close to being accurate, does that mean that I am able to make predictions about what the climate is likely to do?
Data doesn’t matter. Consensus does. What do you think this is, science or something?
And of course the 2 out of 90 that even came close were ignored.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/ice-expert-predicts-lake-superior-will-completely-freeze-over
Cyclical or because human beings exist?
As I’ve said before, the key to effective computer models is calibration. If your model cannot predict past results, it can’t predict future probabilities. I’ve not seen any evidence that climate models were calibrated. The whole enterprise is bushwah. Until and unless climate models are calibrated, I see no reason to put any faith in them.
Remembering the old TV show Dragnet….Srgt. Friday plainly stating “Just the facts, Mam.” Wishing that was still true today.
Should we believe those who state “facts” that fly in the face of common sense and actual data. I’m old enough to have seen the 40 year weather cycle twice. But then those “climate scientists” have the degrees, BS, MS, PhD… we all know what BS is, MS is More of the Same, and PhD is just Piled Higher and Deeper. “Who,” Galileo asked, “would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?” He was imprisoned by those who held to the “scientific consensus of the universe” of the day, about the time of the Jamestown settlement. Like the weather, man and human nature… the more thy change, the more thy stay the same. My high school physics teacher used to fool us all the time by presenting a demonstration that the the class all agreed would have certain outcomes, but when executed, would have an entirely different result. Then he would recite, “Science by consensus is ideology; science is only science when everybody can get the same result. There is no consensus in science, just facts.”
I listen to J. Batchelor. regularly. His interview with you mentioned an independent scientist to published a review of the number of scientists was far different than that presently suggested by climate change “believers”. What was that reference? Thanks
See this post: A close review of the sources cited in the four studies that claimed a 97% scientific consensus supporting global warming has found that claim to be false.