10 Common Climate Change Denier Myths

[ReinyDays]

You are making a mistake that has always seemed to me to be common among deniers. You find all the potential error sources in climate models and throw them at us. You then conclude, with no further examination, that modeling is worthless. That is a logical failure. Models have predictive value. Models have accurately hindcast and such performance was presented in the OP's linked article, to wit:

Finally, we do not need models to come to reasonable and supported conclusions as to what has been happening vis-a-vis global warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and what is happening NOW. Increasing levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the planet. The continued release of GHGs will continue to warm the planet. This has not been an arguable point for many years.

That's proper scientific method ... if you claim climate models are accurate, then it is your responsibility to address error sources ... if you don't, I will ... it's an obligation in science ... if this refutes your claims, then it ain't my mistake, it's yours ... this is part of the typical peer-review process, a publishable scientific paper must state how the researchers dealt with error sources ... I read one recently that went into detail about how they corrected for El Nino, instrument drift and a few others, they also stated which error sources they didn't correct for ... a whole section dedicated to the problems of only having 25 years data to work with ... that's proper science, you deal with the errors ... or withdraw your claim ...

The graph has been posted in this thread alone a half dozen times ... hyperlinks are your friends ...

I'm fine with global warming, it's 1ºC warmer today than 100 years ago, by definition that's global warming ... I'm fine with man-kind's* activities contributing to this effect, it's hard to look at the vast forest lands completely covering the East China Plains and not think man-kind* affects average weather ...

Climate is not changing ... that's just New Speak to make people afraid where there's nothing to be afraid of ... c.f. 1984 ... or I guess for the kidlettes out there Hungry Games ... my challenge is for anyone to pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell me what the climate was 100 years ago, tell me what the climate is today and tell me what the climate will be in another 100 years ... if all three are the same, then there is no change ...

Please direct me to where I ever said modeling was worthless ... any place over all of time ... my claim is that they become more inaccurate the further we project into the future ... this isn't a logical failure on my part, it is a reading failure on your part ...

* = I hold women blameless in these matters, and for reasons other than shamelessly pandering for their vote ...
kinda ...

 

[flacaltenn]

Did your cult not send you the memo? Most deniers tell us that solar output is dropping, and the world will enter a new ice age soon. You're even out of step with your own cult.

At least they get part of that right. TSI has been dropping since the peak around 1970. That's not debatable, and yet here you are trying to debate it.

I got the memo ... and said the same thing, what ignorant drivel is this? ... pure insanity ... the energy output at any given wavelength depends solely on temperature ... the only way to reduce solar output is to reduce solar temperature ... CO2 in Earth's atmosphere won't do that ...

Does the sun look dimmer and redder? ... use your prism and tell me the solar spectrum has changed ... there's no debate, the solar constant is, in fact, constant ... that's why we call it a constant ... did you even manage to pass algebra? ...

Your graph is fraudulent, the vertical axis isn't labeled ... is that 70 Mickey Mouse points? ... just ignorant drivel ...

ACTUALLY, you won't see it on a prism, but when the sun looks like it enters a path to a minimum, the UV spectrum picks up in proportion to other bands as the TSI increases.. Makes Solar irradiation even MORE effective at heating the oceans..

 

[flacaltenn]

Anyone? I know it seems popular to use any thread as an excuse to argue about whatever is on your mind, but we're supposed to be talking about the material in the OP. Since the above listed items are the bulk of AGW deniers arguments, those of you in that category must have some points to make here. Let's hear them.

The "material" in the CBS article aint worth a recycled tire.. This is NEWS organization not quoting ACTUAL science, but quoting the fringes of hysteria around that topic...

Any article that TOTALLY DISMISSES 0.1% change in solar irradiation as "insignificant" without REALIZING that's in the SAME MAGNITUDE as the "GW forcing" from CO2 --- ain't worth discussing...

Got an idea there Squidward -- since you've been going at this for about 2 decades now and only back-sliding,

\
Why dont YOU ADDRESS the criticisms of "your science article"... Start with how one of three major networks runs a special on GW years ago and tries to scare everybody with graphics showing the oceans boiling????

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh look.... Another Crick regurgitation of false statements.... How many times must you be beat over the head, by your propaganda being destroyed, will it take to teach you that you believe a lie?

I'm still waiting for the first dear Billy. Which of these ten items from the OP would you care to demonstrate are not myths?

Myth #1: It's the sun.
Myth #2: Carbon dioxide levels are tiny. They can't make a difference.
Myth #3: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.
Myth #4: The climate has always changed. It's natural.
Myth #5: It's cold out. What happened to global warming?
Myth #6: In the 1970s scientists warned about a coming ice age. They were wrong. So why should we believe them now?
Myth #7: The temperature record is rigged or unreliable
Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.
Myth #9: Grand Solar Minimum is coming. It will counteract global warming.
Myth #10: Scientists claim climate change will destroy the planet by 2030.

THen you're not reading the responses from everyone here.. Is it because you really SOLELY on retread hysteria from CBS (the oceans will boil) network? Or because you cannot discuss or defend the topics in your list?

 

[Crick]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You don't seem to have understood (if you even read) the linked article. The person adding fudge factors to the "data" in your graphic was Spencer, who shifted both the model outputs and the measured temperature data dramatically. That is clearly seen in the article and even Spencer could not successfully contend otherwise. Climate models are sufficiently accurate to provide usable predictions.

 

[Crick]

THen you're not reading the responses from everyone here.. Is it because you really SOLELY on retread hysteria from CBS (the oceans will boil) network? Or because you cannot discuss or defend the topics in your list?

Do you have any published studies that show any of those ten myths aren't myths? No? Gee, what a fooking surprise.

I have visited this site perhaps twice in the last two years and neither was an extended visit. I find, of course, that the same fools are still here regurgitating the same utter nonsense. I assumed that two years of continued global temperature increases, Greenland melting by the gigatonne and record highs in Antarctica might have had some impact on some of the deniers here. But it appears not. Ugly is only skin deep but stupid - goes - to - the - BONE.

 

[flacaltenn]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You don't seem to have understood (if you even read) the linked article. The person adding fudge factors to the "data" in your graphic was Spencer, who shifted both the model outputs and the measured temperature data dramatically. That is clearly seen in the article and even Spencer could not successfully contend otherwise. Climate models are sufficiently accurate to provide usable predictions.

Nuh huh bud.. Spencer RAN the models himself.. Because some model sets are available to everyone... Even not as dramatic as the 1990s runs that the IPCC published.. Go grab AR2 or 3 and compare....

 

[flacaltenn]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You don't seem to have understood (if you even read) the linked article. The person adding fudge factors to the "data" in your graphic was Spencer, who shifted both the model outputs and the measured temperature data dramatically. That is clearly seen in the article and even Spencer could not successfully contend otherwise. Climate models are sufficiently accurate to provide usable predictions.

Nuh huh bud.. Spencer RAN the models himself.. Because some model sets are available to everyone... Even not as dramatic as the 1990s runs that the IPCC published.. Go grab AR2 or 3 and compare....

The false "fact checkers" you're using are showing "carbon emission scenerios that DID NOT HAPPEN to get say that the models are fine....

From Bray and von Storch, one of their 3 comprehensive surveys of scientist opinion where the IMPORTANT questions are all asked.. More than 40% of the respondents have "little faith" in the 50 year predictive ability of the modeling (as it was about 2005 or 8)..

And AS USUAL, you'll ignore this completely and NOT respond -- so we can all just snicker at you...

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you have any published studies that show any of those ten myths aren't myths? No? Gee, what a fooking surprise.

I have visited this site perhaps twice in the last two years and neither was an extended visit. I find, of course, that the same fools are still here regurgitating the same utter nonsense. I assumed that two years of continued global temperature increases, Greenland melting by the gigatonne and record highs in Antarctica might have had some impact on some of the deniers here. But it appears not. Ugly is only skin deep but stupid - goes - to - the - BONE.

Are we here to discuss dynamic meteorology? ... please re-read Myth #5 in the OP ... I like NOAA's statement better: "Climate is what we expect, weather is what we actually get" ... Myth #5 is wrong in one area, climate isn't about "years or decades", that's weather ... climate is "decades and centuries" ... so, no, tomorrow's temperature isn't climate change, it's weather change ...

There's a couple of known atmospheric oscillations with periods around 20 to 30 years ... climate averages need to include several of these periods to "average out" their effect ... the most recent solar maxima was rather underwhelming, so it's important to look at the past 6 or 8 to effectively remove that from our long range predictions ... thus we use 100 years averages as a minimum time interval ... anything shorter is contaminated by the dynamics ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You don't seem to have understood (if you even read) the linked article. The person adding fudge factors to the "data" in your graphic was Spencer, who shifted both the model outputs and the measured temperature data dramatically. That is clearly seen in the article and even Spencer could not successfully contend otherwise. Climate models are sufficiently accurate to provide usable predictions.

Nuh huh bud.. Spencer RAN the models himself.. Because some model sets are available to everyone... Even not as dramatic as the 1990s runs that the IPCC published.. Go grab AR2 or 3 and compare....

MIT Climate Clowns don't take it seriously, neither should you

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We should be embracing climate change, especially after the sea comes up and washes so many useless East Coast liberals away.

Not all deniers are violent sociopaths who desire death for everyone their cult told them to hate, but the majority are.

Once again, you forgot to post your facts.

Or can we just say you are an asshole (simply because we think you are an asshole) with no proof ?

 

[flacaltenn]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You don't seem to have understood (if you even read) the linked article. The person adding fudge factors to the "data" in your graphic was Spencer, who shifted both the model outputs and the measured temperature data dramatically. That is clearly seen in the article and even Spencer could not successfully contend otherwise. Climate models are sufficiently accurate to provide usable predictions.

Nuh huh bud.. Spencer RAN the models himself.. Because some model sets are available to everyone... Even not as dramatic as the 1990s runs that the IPCC published.. Go grab AR2 or 3 and compare....

The false "fact checkers" you're using are showing "carbon emission scenerios that DID NOT HAPPEN to get say that the models are fine....

From Bray and von Storch, one of their 3 comprehensive surveys of scientist opinion where the IMPORTANT questions are all asked.. More than 40% of the respondents have "little faith" in the 50 year predictive ability of the modeling (as it was about 2005 or 8)..

And AS USUAL, you'll ignore this completely and NOT respond -- so we can all just snicker at you...

Sorry Crick, pulled the wrong question from Bray and von Storch... HERE'S the one on GENERAL Modeling confidence for climate... About 35% say they are "fair to shit".. Only about 8% think they're "very good"....

Discuss -- will ya??? Hoping you CAN...

 

[gipper]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You don't seem to have understood (if you even read) the linked article. The person adding fudge factors to the "data" in your graphic was Spencer, who shifted both the model outputs and the measured temperature data dramatically. That is clearly seen in the article and even Spencer could not successfully contend otherwise. Climate models are sufficiently accurate to provide usable predictions.

Nuh huh bud.. Spencer RAN the models himself.. Because some model sets are available to everyone... Even not as dramatic as the 1990s runs that the IPCC published.. Go grab AR2 or 3 and compare....

The false "fact checkers" you're using are showing "carbon emission scenerios that DID NOT HAPPEN to get say that the models are fine....

From Bray and von Storch, one of their 3 comprehensive surveys of scientist opinion where the IMPORTANT questions are all asked.. More than 40% of the respondents have "little faith" in the 50 year predictive ability of the modeling (as it was about 2005 or 8)..

And AS USUAL, you'll ignore this completely and NOT respond -- so we can all just snicker at you...

Why argue over this meaningless point? When the sun goes nova and the geomagnetic poles flip, we’re all dead. Some think this will happen in 2046. Is anyone preparing?

 

[flacaltenn]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You don't seem to have understood (if you even read) the linked article. The person adding fudge factors to the "data" in your graphic was Spencer, who shifted both the model outputs and the measured temperature data dramatically. That is clearly seen in the article and even Spencer could not successfully contend otherwise. Climate models are sufficiently accurate to provide usable predictions.

Nuh huh bud.. Spencer RAN the models himself.. Because some model sets are available to everyone... Even not as dramatic as the 1990s runs that the IPCC published.. Go grab AR2 or 3 and compare....

The false "fact checkers" you're using are showing "carbon emission scenerios that DID NOT HAPPEN to get say that the models are fine....

From Bray and von Storch, one of their 3 comprehensive surveys of scientist opinion where the IMPORTANT questions are all asked.. More than 40% of the respondents have "little faith" in the 50 year predictive ability of the modeling (as it was about 2005 or 8)..

And AS USUAL, you'll ignore this completely and NOT respond -- so we can all just snicker at you...

Why argue over this meaningless point? When the sun goes nova and the geomagnetic poles flip, we’re all dead. Some thing that will happen in 2046. Is anyone preparing?

The ONLY reason I care Dude, is I don't won't hysterical 15 yr old Finnish girls with instabilities winning "Person of the Year" and forcing me to live like the Dark Ages for the rest of the life I DO HAVE...

It's that IMMEDIATE threat of "dogmatizing" this science and turning it into a political weapons like the "Green Raw Deal".....

 

[flacaltenn]

A more accurate comment would have been, "let's see how they do if we disingenuously set them up to fail from the start".

[
Lets see how they do without training them and having no predictive phase seen.

View attachment 309891

The empirical evidence says your models not only failed but failed so badly even 2 standard deviations was to narrow an error band. Now what do you call a GCM that has no predictive capabilities? FAILED... And what do you call the hypothesis the model is built on? Falsified...

At what point will you idiots start over on your failed hypothesis?

Now that's funny....

Your crying because you want to continuously adjust the fudge factor to get the desired output...

My Gawd man...... Your an idiot!

You don't seem to have understood (if you even read) the linked article. The person adding fudge factors to the "data" in your graphic was Spencer, who shifted both the model outputs and the measured temperature data dramatically. That is clearly seen in the article and even Spencer could not successfully contend otherwise. Climate models are sufficiently accurate to provide usable predictions.

You're whining about "stupid to the bone" is just annoying.. YOU NEVER DISCUSS.. You just SPEW whatever "catch of the day" you find from CBS or SkepShitScience and then pretty hide or run... You've WASTED such a large part of your life NOT BEING USEFUL in defending your positions...

Lemme illustrate -- you just claimed ----

Climate models are sufficiently accurate to provide usable predictions.

I just posted a VETTED survey of Climate scientists BY climate scientists saying that a thousand or so of them DONT AGREE.... You want to address that? NO !!! you dont...

So let me try a DIFFERENT tack and watch you avoid me... Just answer ONE QUESTION for us...

Have you EVER SEEN a fully developed suite of modeled future temperatures that ENDS in 2100 with LESS THAN a 2.5 to 1.0 RANGE of POSSIBLE values?? Do you think that is "sufficiently adequate for us to go into "hair on fire" mode back to the Dark Ages if the LOWEST possible is 1.9DegC anomaly and the HIGHEST is 6DegC????

Please post it.. Because from 6 years of dealing with you I KNOW FOR A FACT -- you can not read graphs..

 

[flacaltenn]

Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.

Climate models take into consideration only known factors ... we don't include any of the many unknown factors that effect climate ... the biggest unknown factor is climate sensitivity ... we're just guessing what value this is and this is why the more honest computer runs give wide flat distribution curves ...

In computation fluid dynamics, we have something called a "unit volume" ... this is how we divide up our atmosphere into small parts and analyze climate ... of course, the smaller this unit volume, the more accurate the computer run results will be ... but that's balanced against how long it take to run on our fastest computers ... if we used cubic centimeters for our unit volume, we could very likely obtain very accurate results, but this takes 10,000 years to predict just 100 years from now ... what's the point? ... so we sacrifice accuracy to get results in a timely manner ... as of a few years ago, our unit volume was 7.5º x 7.5º x full height of atmosphere ... this unit volume is huge and completely ignores convection ... we have to gut accuracy to get timely results ...

When we plug in values into our climate models from 100 years ago ... they do not predict today's conditions ... if you have a citation that says otherwise, I'd honestly love to read it ... so climate models are inaccurate over the past ... there's nothing that says they will be accurate in the future ... this is an area of very active research ... we are getting better models with each passing season ... plus computers are still being tortured by Moore's Law (double transistors per square inch per year) ...

I already addressed the fraud in the article that claimed there were only 17 climate models over a 27 year period ... filthy lie ... there's been thousands of models developed in that time ... even cherry-picking the best of the best, the authors still could only find 14 that "worked" ... go ahead and look at the distribution curves, okay, sure, that "worked" at some level I suppose ...

Looks like the RCP6.5 scenario is all but abandoned by actual scientists as being crazy batshit ... RCP8.5 scenario is still used to create click-bait and get authors a spot on Opera's Coffee Clatch show right before General Hospital comes on ... there's cash value for Daytime Emma Awards, worth convincing folks the oceans will boil off in 30 years ...

Please rebut ... and show your math please ...

You are making a mistake that has always seemed to me to be common among deniers. You find all the potential error sources in climate models and throw them at us. You then conclude, with no further examination, that modeling is worthless. That is a logical failure. Models have predictive value. Models have accurately hindcast and such performance was presented in the OP's linked article, to wit:

Finally, we do not need models to come to reasonable and supported conclusions as to what has been happening vis-a-vis global warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and what is happening NOW. Increasing levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the planet. The continued release of GHGs will continue to warm the planet. This has not been an arguable point for many years.

I'm doubting that graph of yours WAS EVER in a scientific paper.. It's just NOT RIGHT... So cough up the ACTUAL source because when I asked BING to find similar images, there were 4 or 6 hits with PAGE TITLES and URLS like -----

Alarmists want skeptics prosecuted under RICO | CFACT

And your FAVORITE --- SkepShitScience site... I'm thinking the pro cartoonists at your fave did another crayon job....

PLEASE FIND THE SOURCE....

CFACT|620 × 515 png|Image may be subject to copyright.

 

[flacaltenn]

View attachment 309892

Your contention is false.

or, from the OP

Both graphs are CRAP... ALL El nino years and volcanic events removed... It's more of that "data fraud" that everyone is aware of... The NOAA charts back in the EARLY 2000s clearly show a FULL 1 DegC El Nino in 1998....

Hey Squidward ---- WHERE"D THAT GO TO????

Also Squidward -- Where did the FUCKING "PAUSE" go that was even acknowledged by the IPCC --- for 1998 to about 2011????

CAN YOU ANSWER WHY THESE EVENTS NO LONGER APPEAR WHEN ONCE THEY DID?

( I can... But I wouldn't waste the time discussing it with you.. It has to do with using REAL DATA rather than "REANALYSIS".)

 

[Sunsettommy]

Myth #8: Climate models are not accurate.

Climate models take into consideration only known factors ... we don't include any of the many unknown factors that effect climate ... the biggest unknown factor is climate sensitivity ... we're just guessing what value this is and this is why the more honest computer runs give wide flat distribution curves ...

In computation fluid dynamics, we have something called a "unit volume" ... this is how we divide up our atmosphere into small parts and analyze climate ... of course, the smaller this unit volume, the more accurate the computer run results will be ... but that's balanced against how long it take to run on our fastest computers ... if we used cubic centimeters for our unit volume, we could very likely obtain very accurate results, but this takes 10,000 years to predict just 100 years from now ... what's the point? ... so we sacrifice accuracy to get results in a timely manner ... as of a few years ago, our unit volume was 7.5º x 7.5º x full height of atmosphere ... this unit volume is huge and completely ignores convection ... we have to gut accuracy to get timely results ...

When we plug in values into our climate models from 100 years ago ... they do not predict today's conditions ... if you have a citation that says otherwise, I'd honestly love to read it ... so climate models are inaccurate over the past ... there's nothing that says they will be accurate in the future ... this is an area of very active research ... we are getting better models with each passing season ... plus computers are still being tortured by Moore's Law (double transistors per square inch per year) ...

I already addressed the fraud in the article that claimed there were only 17 climate models over a 27 year period ... filthy lie ... there's been thousands of models developed in that time ... even cherry-picking the best of the best, the authors still could only find 14 that "worked" ... go ahead and look at the distribution curves, okay, sure, that "worked" at some level I suppose ...

Looks like the RCP6.5 scenario is all but abandoned by actual scientists as being crazy batshit ... RCP8.5 scenario is still used to create click-bait and get authors a spot on Opera's Coffee Clatch show right before General Hospital comes on ... there's cash value for Daytime Emma Awards, worth convincing folks the oceans will boil off in 30 years ...

Please rebut ... and show your math please ...

You are making a mistake that has always seemed to me to be common among deniers. You find all the potential error sources in climate models and throw them at us. You then conclude, with no further examination, that modeling is worthless. That is a logical failure. Models have predictive value. Models have accurately hindcast and such performance was presented in the OP's linked article, to wit:

Finally, we do not need models to come to reasonable and supported conclusions as to what has been happening vis-a-vis global warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and what is happening NOW. Increasing levels of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the planet. The continued release of GHGs will continue to warm the planet. This has not been an arguable point for many years.

I'm doubting that graph of yours WAS EVER in a scientific paper.. It's just NOT RIGHT... So cough up the ACTUAL source because when I asked BING to find similar images, there were 4 or 6 hits with PAGE TITLES and URLS like -----

Alarmists want skeptics prosecuted under RICO | CFACT

And your FAVORITE --- SkepShitScience site... I'm thinking the pro cartoonists at your fave did another crayon job....

PLEASE FIND THE SOURCE....

CFACT|620 × 515 png|Image may be subject to copyright.

It comes from Cricks post one link, Myth #8,

Up until now, there has been relatively little work evaluating the performance of climate model projections with actual observations, or in layman terms, real-world outcomes. However, now enough time has passed since the first climate model projections were published, and the Earth has warmed enough, to be able to evaluate how well models performed.

A recent study evaluated 17 climate model projections published between 1970 and 2007, with forecasts ending on or before 2017. The researchers found 14 of the 17 model projections were consistent with observed real-world surface temperatures, when they factored in the actual rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Here's the assessment of the lead scientist on the study, Dr. Zeke Hausfather: "Climate models have by and large gotten things right."

based on that hilarious Zeke Hausfather, Schmidt et al paper, HERE

Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections

=================

Crick never read that paper (PAYWALLED) since the chart he posted doesn't come from that paper CBS rutted over, a typically dishonest attempt to fool the mostly science illiterate public, Crick was fooled.... apparently.

The chart CBS and Crick post starts at 1980, ha ha ha, so they are missing 10 years already....

Just 17 models chosen out of maybe 1,000 thousand published climate models, it is a highly dishonest attempt to make it appear that only 17 climate models were published since 1970. The lies just keeps coming from Gavin "data adjuster" Schmidt, Zeke "chronic liar" Hausfather and two others.

They completely left out the IPCC's own much larger slate of climate models...., that have been horrid failures.

Crick as usual doesn't make an honest presentation, it is a lie being used to confuse a public largely ignorant of many hundreds of OTHER published climate models that are profound failures.

=====

This presentation addressed some of the nonsense by Hausfather et al paper.

Watts up with that?

Climate Models Have Not Improved in 50 Years

LINK​

 

[flacaltenn]

A recent study evaluated 17 climate model projections published between 1970 and 2007, with forecasts ending on or before 2017.

I know you and several other folks that frequent this site understand all that.. But I wasn't gonna push Crick to engage... The TELLING THING that he did not even RECOGNIZE (besides, the chopped and diced NOAA temp graph based on "reanalysis" and NOT actual data) was this this model comparison was NOT PREDICTING A DAMN thing.

It's FORECASTS ENDED IN 2017 !!!!!!!! How many warmer morons ya think even can figure that out for themselves???

How many same morons understand that when folks complain about the modeling accuracy, we're not talking about the ability to forecast for 15 years out?? We're talking about the CONSISTENT failure of PREVIOUS MODELING estimates that have BARELY hugged the bottom edge of the envelope 15 years out and CLAIM TO PREDICT ---- 80 years out??

Crick How much of what I just typed do YOU understand?????

 

[flacaltenn]

They completely left out the IPCC's own much larger slate of climate models...., that have been horrid failures.

That's why I asked Crick to compare Dr. Spencer's example to the old IPCC runs that set everyone's hair on fire.. But he didn't and won't... And since Dr. Spencer used ACTUAL data from the satellite fleet for temperature, NOT MODELED "reanalysis" data that literally FOLLOWS THE FUCKING MODELS they are trying to match --- it's a COMPLETELY believable result....

You STILL SEE the "pause" and the El Ninos in the Sat data.. Even volcanoes.. With the FAKE "reanalysis" data you only see what the MODELS want you to see...