Dr Willie Soon was subjected to a well-funded and centrally-coordinated campaign of libels to the effect that he had not disclosed that a utility company had paid him to contribute to the skeptical researchers’ January paper. Inferentially, the aim was to divert attention from the paper’s findings that climate alarm was based on a series of elementary mistakes at the heart of the complex models. In fact, all four co-authors had written the January paper and the new paper on their own time and on their own dime.
Dr Soon said: “What matters to campaigners is the campaign, but what matters to scientists is the science. In 85 years’ time our little model’s prediction of just 0.9 C° global warming between now and 2100 will probably be a lot closer to observed reality than the campaigners’ prediction of 4 C° warming.”
Dr Matt Briggs said: “The climate campaigners’ attempted rebuttal of our original paper was littered with commonplace scientific errors. Here are just a few:
Ø “The campaigners cherry-picked one scenario instead of many, to try to show the large models were better than our simple one. Even then, the complex models were barely better than ours.
Ø “They implied we should tweak our model till it fitted past data. We used physics instead.
Ø “They said we should check our model against real-world warming. We have. It works.
Ø “They criticized our simple model but should have criticized the far less reliable complex models.
Ø “They complained that our simple model had left out ‘many physical processes’. Of course it did: it was simple. Its skill lies in rejecting the unnecessary, retaining only the essential processes.
Ø “They assumed that future warming rates can be reliably deduced from past warming rates. Yet there are grave measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties, particularly in pre-1979 data.
Ø “They assumed that natural and manmade climate influences can be distinguished. They cannot.
Ø “They said we should not have used a single pulse of manmade forcing. But most models do that.
Ø “They said our model had not been “validated” when their own test showed it worked well.
Ø “They said they disagreed with our model when they merely disagreed with our parameters.
Ø “They said we should not project past temperature trends forward. We did no such thing.
Ø “They used root-mean-squared-error statistics, but RMSE statistics are a poor validation tool.
Ø “They incorrectly referred to the closed-loop feedback gain as the “system gain”, but in feedback-driven systems it is the open-loop gain that is the system gain.
Ø “They inaccurately described our grounds for finding temperature feedbacks net-negative.
Ø “They assumed that 810,000 years was a period much the same as 55 million years. It is not.
Ø “They said we had misrepresented a paper we had cited, but their quotation from that paper omitted a vital phrase that confirmed our interpretation of the paper’s results.
Ø “They said net-negative feedbacks would not have allowed ice ages to end. Yet the paper they themselves cited described two non-feedback causes of sudden major global temperature change.
Ø “They said temperature buoys had found a ‘net heating’ of half a Watt per square meter in the oceans: but Watts per square meter do not measure ‘heating’: they measure heat flow.
Ø “They implied the ‘heating’ of the oceans was significant, but over the entire 11-year run of reliable ARGO sea-temperature data the warming rate is equivalent to only 1 C° every 430 years.
Ø “They said the complex models had correctly predicted warming since 1998, but since January 1997 there has been no global warming at all. Not one of the complex models had predicted that.
Ø “They praised the complex models, but did not state that the models’ central warming prediction in 1990 has proved to be almost three times the observed warming in the 25 years since then.
Ø “They failed to explain how a substantial reduction in temperature feedbacks in response to an unchanged forcing might lead, as they implied it did, to unchanged, high climate sensitivity.”
Professor David Legates said: “As we say in our new paper, the complex general-circulation models now face a crisis of credibility. It is perplexing that, as those models’ predictions prove ever more exaggerated, their creators express ever greater confidence in them. It is time for a rethink. Our model shows there is no manmade climate problem. So far, it is proving to be correct, which is more than can be said for the billion-dollar brains operated by the profiteers of doom.”
The new paper is open-access at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-015-0856-2
Keeping it simple: the value of an irreducibly simple climate model