Real World Data Sinks The Great Global Warming Swindle

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations

on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

– Prof. Chris Folland,

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“The models are convenient fictions

that provide something very useful.”

– Dr David Frame,

climate modeler, Oxford University

•••

•••

via Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog :

Mark Steyn on the despair of the warmists:

The hysteria of Mann-style alarmism is going nowhere with the public, as one of the hysterics, Graeme Richardson, acknowledges here:



The sceptics and deniers have turned the 70 per cent-plus belief in climate change into a minority because no one has engaged them. As my distinguished co-author on Climate Change: The Facts, Jo Nova, responds: That’s right Graham, we unfunded bloggers and the few surviving skeptical scientists not evicted and blackballed from our universities (yet) have tricked 20% of the population because no one has put forward the climate change arguments except for: The Climate Commission, CSIRO, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Royal Dutch Shell, GE, Panasonic, The ABC, The BBC, The Guardian, Fairfax, The Australian government, most universities, The EU, The UN, The World Bank, and the IMF. Not to mention President Obama and the US Coast Guard, and George Clooney and his crappy floppo movie. Given that everyone from Hollywood to Washington to the Royal Society to half the churches and every elementary school in the western world is on Graeme’s side of the argument, their inability to sway public opinion must be ranked one of the most spectacular failures of the age – a veritable upside-down hockey stick.

UPDATE

Why did the head of the Bureau of Meteorology give a Senate committee information that was – in my opinion – highly misleading?

Jo Nova:

Maurice Newman, the chairman of the P.M’s business advisory council, daringly wrote in The Australian: “It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.” In Senate estimates, a Greens spokesperson asked Dr Rob Vertessy, Director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on his view of this. “That is incorrect,” he said… If Maurice Newman was wrong, he was far too generous to the climate modelers. Instead of a 95% failure rate, it’s well up over 98%. Hans von Storch et al published a paper nearly two years ago comparing models and observations of a 15 year long pause. Statistically von Storch could find no justification for people saying the models matched the observations — there was a less than 2% chance of that. Last year Ross McKitrick estimated the pause was really 19 years long, so the odds are now less than 0.5%. Newman was being kind, suggesting that 5% of models might be called “right”.

Atmospheric scientist John Christy contradicts our Bureau chief:





Speaking before Congress, Professor of Atmospheric Science John Christy illustrates the gross inaccuracy of the 102 climate model simulations relied upon by the United Nation’s in the latest IPCC AR5 climate change report. Professor Christy describes his chart: ‘That is the trend in the atmospheric temperature that has happened since 1979. That’s the target that you want to hit with your climate model. So, it’s like we give someone 102 bullets to shoot at that target… Not a single one of these climate model projections was able to hit the target.’

•••

See also :