Corruption of Climate Science Supported by Flawed Models

By Gregory Wrightstone

Imagine the theory of gravity being determined by a partisan vote. Or a group of politicians ruling on interpretations of the laws of modern physics. Bizarre as those propositions sound, that is what is happening in climate science.

Scientific research is done predominantly in academia, where truth is supposedly established through years of work that is financially supported by government or private entities. Sometimes, the financiers of research desire particular outcomes for their money.

Human nature being what it is, ulterior motives creep into researchers’ methods and results when funding sources have a point view that is made known to scientists applying for grants and working in laboratories. A sort of predeterminism arises where the funder’s interests are given priority over time-proven scientific methodologies.

There are large factions of politicians and scientists committed to a baseless narrative that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to an apocalyptic warming of Earth. With the enthusiasm of religious zealots and the ruthlessness of the power-mad, a climate industrial complex is driving energy policy on the basis of a hundred or so badly flawed computer models. More than 95 percent of these digital prognosticators have proven unreliable in predicting climatic trends. Yet, they are used anyhow.

In simple terms, the models are designed to exaggerate the potency of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Consequently, the models overstate future warming. The magnification of forecasted warming is revealed by retrospectively comparing model results to actual, historical temperatures.

A 2020 scientific analysis revealed that “models overpredict warming in every target observational analog, in most cases significantly so, and the average differences between models and observations are statistically significant.”

Scientist Ross McKitrick calls out errors of modelers that exaggerate future temperature increases.

“I get it that modeling the climate is incredibly difficult, and no one faults the scientific community for finding it a tough problem to solve,” writes McKitrick. “But we are all living with the consequences of climate modelers stubbornly using generation after generation of models that exhibit too much surface and tropospheric warming, in addition to running grossly exaggerated forcing scenarios.” (Forcing is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere.)

“Back in 2005 in the first report of the then-new U.S. Climate Change Science Program, (others) pointed to the exaggerated warming in the tropical troposphere as a ‘potentially serious inconsistency,’” McKitrick says. “But rather than fixing it since then, modelers have made it worse. (The report writers) note that in addition to the wrong warming trends themselves, the biases have broader implications because ‘atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients.’” 

Why do researchers continue to use models that are known to exaggerate warming? To produce outcomes that support a view politically popular with the climate obsessed?

It would seem so, given the profit motive and the lucrative nature of the current pernicious cycle: Governments advance their doomsday narrative, scientists and research institutions get grants, the green lobby secures investments and subsidies for uneconomic and ineffective technologies, and political candidates embrace the hysteria in exchange for campaign contributions.

This is all supported by working people who pay excessive taxes and unnecessarily high energy bills. Some employed in the fossil fuel industry pay with loss of livelihoods. The price for the poorest among us — particularly in the developing world — may be lives lost through further impoverishment and early death.

Some climate warmists may be ignorant of science’s corruption. However, others cynically take advantage of it for money and power. At some point, this facade will collapse because of the lack of reality behind it. Nonetheless, we are obligated to do what we can to accelerate the falsehood’s dismantlement if only to honor sacrifices made by others in the name of truth.

In the 16th century, Martin Luther freed millions from the tyranny of a corrupt church by refusing to recant what he knew to be true. He managed to avoid torture and death by fire for his alleged heresies. Others were not so fortunate.

Yet our obligation is deeper than memorializing the past. As biographer Eric Metaxas writes: “In the end, what Luther did was not merely to open a door in which people were free to rebel against their leaders but to open a door in which people were obliged by God to take responsibility for themselves.”

Those who recognize the wrong can do no other than to point it out. And so we do.

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va.; and author of Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesnt want you to know.

This commentary was first published at PJ Media August 20, 2022

4.8 36 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
August 22, 2022 6:08 am

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Michael VK5ELL

Reply to  Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
August 22, 2022 9:14 am

It’s important to recognize that federal science subsidies distort their market, like all subsidies. It pulls in marginal “scientists” who otherwise would find other work more suited to their intellect, and in addition to the piper payer selecting the field, marginal scientists are not qualified for rigorous fields, but they need all the trappings of rigorous fields in order to justify being called “scientists”.

They remind me ever so much of someone I knew who was an astrologer because it had all the trappings of engineering — books full of tables and formulas, calculations, esoteric jargon, excess precision, you name it. She admitted she gave better readings face to face without her books, but refused to connect the dots.

Reply to  Michael ElliottMichael Elliott
August 22, 2022 10:50 am

Unfortunately, the pipers are off tune but still getting paid

Reply to  Redge
August 23, 2022 1:27 am

The pipers are supposed to lead the rats out of the city, not into office.

Joe Born
August 22, 2022 6:12 am

The CO2 Coalition’s founder is former Princeton physics professor William Happer. 

As director the Department of Energy’s Office of Science in the early ’90s, he discovered that environmental science differs greatly from high-energy physics, nuclear physics, materials science, the human genome, and the many other fields over which the Office had responsibility. In most fields funded by the Office its grants’ principal investigators were delighted to give the seminars requested of them, and they enjoyed being questioned during their talks. “But, with honorable exceptions, principal investigators working on environmental issues were reluctant to come to our Washington offices, and evasive about answering the questions that were so welcome to briefers from other fields.”

Although there are indeed thousands of people who call themselves climate scientists, what rings truer to some of us who have followed the debate for over a decade is veteran climate modeler Mototaka Nakamura’s observation in Confessions of a Climate Scientist that the climate-science community resembles an inverted pyramid. A small handful of modelers produce the assumptions on which the large majority of climate scientists base their work, often treating modelers’ computer-laundered speculations as data. 

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Joe Born
August 22, 2022 8:29 am

A very valuable way to look at and and understand climate ‘science’! I’ve argued that, although sceptics have done yeomans’ service combating the drivel of ‘consensus science’, the dark side has successfully marginalized sceptics casting them as alt-right wing knuckle draggers over a number of years.

I advise shaming and naming so that the global fallout from Policy-Caused destruction of economies, shortages of fuel, power, food, rapidly rising costs for evetything, has names attached to it – the main climate consensus enablers like Mann, Betts, Hansen, Ramsdorf … the WEF Billionaires like Bloomberg, Gates, Rockefeller Brothers… politicians .. Take your Pick…

Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 22, 2022 9:36 am

We name and shame but the MSM won’t publish so the general public never get to know what we have said.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 22, 2022 10:26 pm

All that you say is big oil company propaganda. I know that because I consistently get that affirmation to any data, research papers, or general information I present to people who are in the know. They know that what the party tells them is the only truth. Every other idea fall on deaf ears.

Reply to  Joe Born
August 22, 2022 8:37 am

“A small handful of modelers produce the assumptions on which the large majority of climate scientists base their work, often treating modelers’ computer-laundered speculations as data.”

Backwards. The belief in a coming global warming crisis began in the late 1950s with oceanographer Roger Revelle and some associates. No specific ECS and no specific date, and back when scientists had uncertainty.

By the 1970s a consensus ECS was guessed at, and some scientists guessed at climate crisis timing. Not much uncertainty left.

The modern style GCM’s were programmed to reflect the CAGW beliefs. I’m not sure about earlier. simpler models. It doesn’t matter –– computers predict what they are programmed to predict. Climate computers have been programmed to make scary predictions (aka simulations, projections, BS) except the Russian INM model — I guess they didn’t get the memo.

The many causes of climate change are not understood with enough precision to create an accurate climate model. A model could appear accurate from lucky guessing. And that’s assuming the future climate could be predicted, even if every cause of climate change was correctly understood and quantified.

Meanwhile, humans have a terrible track record for predicting the future climate, except me: In 1997 I predicted: “The future climate will be warmer unless it gets colder” — my wise guy antidote to 100 year climate predictions, whether they were done with supercomputers, or on the back of an envelope. “

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
Rick C
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 22, 2022 9:56 am

Notably, Reid Bryson, a meteorology and geology professor at the University of Wisconsin was in the AGW camp in the 1980s but changed his position once he studied the issue more thoroughly. In his latter years he asserted that while the climate was warming somewhat, it was natural and a continuation of the warming coming out of the Little Ice Age. He also held that the cooling of the 1970s was mainly due to aerosols including SO2 from both human and volcanic sources. The great reduction in SO2 emissions that was accomplished in 80s-90s also resulted in some of the warming. Bryson was strongly opposed to elimination of fossil fuels and thought it would do no good while doing great harm to the worlds poor in developing countries.

Last edited 3 months ago by Rick C
Reply to  Rick C
August 22, 2022 1:06 pm

SO2 emissions were still rising in 1975 when global cooling suddenly changed to global warming. They did not start falling until after 1980 They were still quite high in 2010. The data refute Reid Bryson’s theory.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 24, 2022 3:41 am

That’s not *just* Reid Bryson’s theory. It was the scientists’ version of “the dog ate my homework” to explain away the NEGATIVE CORRELATION between CO2 and temperature from the beginning of Mauna Loa measurements and 1975-1980ish.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rick C
August 22, 2022 2:35 pm

How does SO2 figure into previous warming and cooling cycles in the recent past? We have three periods of warming of equal magnitude in the recent past, Were the SO2 circumstances the same for all three periods? What caused the warming and the cooling during this time span?

comment image

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 22, 2022 3:53 pm

The chart stops in 2009. The warming in HadCRUT since 1975 now stands at +0.195 C per decade over a period of almost 48 years. Nothing in the previous record comes close.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 22, 2022 4:34 pm

The “adjustments” have been that ludicrous !

Nothing in the previous record comes close. !

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 22, 2022 5:20 pm

This one?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Macha
August 23, 2022 5:47 am

Hockey Sticks. It’s all you have.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 25, 2022 4:15 am

comment image

comment image

comment image

comment image

Reply to  Rick C
August 22, 2022 10:29 pm

So, Germany, the UK, Canada, and the USA are ‘developing countries’?

Reply to  Joe Born
August 22, 2022 9:33 am

My now 17-year journey as a follower of the climate debate began with –

curiosity or concern about or attention to something

which soon turned to –

doubt or unbelief 

and is now decidedly –

scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity of parties

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mr.
August 22, 2022 2:54 pm

I’ve been skeptical of climate science since Human-caused Global Cooling proponents failed to make their case.

When they switched over to Human-caused Global Warming, I started out skeptical, not giving them the benefit of the doubt, like I did with the Global Cooling crowd.

Neither Human-caused Global Cooling advocates nor Human-caused Global Warming advocates have made their case. And they’ve been trying for 50 years. I’ve watched it all, appalled at the state of climate science, and what passes for science.

Alarmist climate science is a travesty. It’s a stain on real science and scientific thinking. Pretending unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions are evidence of anything is outrageous. But that’s all you get out of alarmist climate science. They can’t tell facts from fiction but they want you to think they know what they are talking about.

Alarmist climate science is basically a scam, and those promoting it are scam artists.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 24, 2022 3:44 am

Agreed – and don’t forget that some of the SAME ‘scientists’ were on BOTH bandwagons.

August 22, 2022 6:35 am

You might want to explain why the models run too hot. I mean it is not much of a secret. CO2 forcing is calculated as if CO2 was the only GHG against a perfectly emitting surface. All the mitigating factors, like overlaps, are ignored. You get totally different figures when doing it correctly..

comment image

Reply to  E. Schaffer
August 22, 2022 7:27 am

I thought most of the excessive warming came from speculated strong positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds. The IPCC and Happer get roughly the same small result for CO2 forcing. The jump in hotness from CMIP5 to CMIP6 is due to increased cloud feedback.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  David Wojick
August 22, 2022 8:17 am

Feedbacks have NEVER been measured. Theory only. Used as a fallback when the other arguments fail.

Reply to  David Wojick
August 22, 2022 8:44 am

“The jump in hotness from CMIP5 to CMIP6 is due to increased cloud feedback.”

The higher range for CMIP6, versus CMIP5, is a step up in CAGW propaganda. Adjustments to the programming were a means to accomplish that goal. The models will always predict what “management” wants predicted. After 40+ years, it’ is very obvious that accurate predictions are not a goal.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 22, 2022 9:32 am

Not so much cloud feedback, but rather the reduction in LRF (lapse rate feedback). In AR4 they still had it at -0.8W/m2. This tamed the feedback loop and allowed them to set other feedbacks unreaslistically high, even by their own standards.

In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation for the MMD at PCMDI of 1.80 ± 0.18 W m–2 °C–1, followed by the (negative) lapse rate feedback (–0.84 ± 0.26 W m–2 °C–1) and the surface albedo feedback (0.26 ± 0.08 W m–2 °C-1). The cloud feedback mean is 0.69 W m–2 °C–1 with a very large inter-model spread of ±0.38 W m–2 °C–1 (Soden and Held, 2006).

Using these figures (central estimates) and a CO2 forcing of 1.1K, you get..

1.1 / ( 1 – (1.8 – 0.84 + 0.26 + 0.69) x 0.3) = 2.58K

Now we need to recall what the negative LRF is. It is simply the difference between warming at emission level and surface. So we can just drop the LRF to find out what warming they expect at the emission level..

1.1 / ( 1 – (1.8 + 0.26 + 0.69) x 0.3)) = 6.29K


So in AR4 the IPCC claims LRF would mitigate surface warming by almost 60%! This is completely wrong and stupid. Realistically models have it at -25 to -30%. The mistake happened because they just did not what they were doing. LRF must be treated and mixed up with other feedbacks btw.

To cure this mistake, they simply reduced LRF. But now of course the models run hot all over..

Reply to  E. Schaffer
August 22, 2022 2:00 pm

Yes the cloud feedback was unleashed, as it were.

Reply to  E. Schaffer
August 22, 2022 10:10 pm

correction: LRF must NOT be treated and mixed up with other feedbacks btw.

Reply to  David Wojick
August 22, 2022 9:20 am

The IPCC does not really get a result, as they are not doing research. Also looking up the output of hitran/modtran is not much research. It is hardly more sophisticated than looking up a phone book.

What these models say, and I do no doubt them, is ~3.7W/m2 gross forcing for 2xCO2. That is without overlaps. If you include other GHGs, but not clouds, the net forcing drops to 3W/m2, as with Wingaarden/Happer.

If you include clouds (and overlaps with them) net forcing drops to 2.15W/m2. And with necessary adjustments to include realistic surface emissvity, you end up with 2W/m2 straight.

The same overlap issue however is equally affecting WV feedback. The difference is just, that with WV overlaps are even larger and so the net WV feedback shrinks by over 50%.

Also the ignorance over surface emissivity has led to an exaggeration of the GHE of vapor. All the “missing” radiation measured TOA is attributed to WV, while a large part of it was never emitted by the surface instead. One can beautifully outline this, when introducing accurate paramters for surface emissivity..

comment image

Anyway, it turns out (radiative) WV feedback is very small, about 0.65W/m2 only, and actually smaller than negative LRF (lapse rate feedback) associated with WV. So do not expect any amplification of CO2 forcing by WV at all..

John Shotsky
August 22, 2022 6:44 am

Imagine the theory of gravity being determined”

There are three levels of certainty in science and math.
They are laws, theories and hypotheses.
Laws are immutable. Gravity is a law.
Theories are near-certain, and are seldom disproved.
Hypotheses are guesses. They can be, and often are disproved. The greenhouse effect, and any climate effects of CO2 are hypotheses.
Hypotheses are usually the ‘best guess’ at any moment in science’s advance. Scientists are supposed to try to disprove hypotheses in order to advance science understanding.
What we have here is a whole world of so-called scientists that are accepting at face value a hypothesis and making world-wide financial decisions based on this hypothesis.
Personally, I don’t think one Co2 molecule per 2500 regular ‘air’ molecules has anything whatever to do with climate. And I don’t see anyone, any more, trying to DISPROVE that hypothesis. Sad.

Reply to  John Shotsky
August 22, 2022 7:14 am

Down with Gravity….

Reply to  fretslider
August 22, 2022 8:56 am

You are a gravity denier

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 22, 2022 9:39 am

Float on….

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  fretslider
August 24, 2022 4:20 am

I prefer the Weird Al version, “Bloat On.” 😉

Reply to  fretslider
August 22, 2022 9:36 am

You just know that sign is going to be front and centre at AOC’s next gathering.

Reply to  Mr.
August 22, 2022 9:42 am

Not surprising. That ‘graffito’ was emblazoned on a footbridge over the railways in early 1960s Battersea; where I grew up with Goering’s adventure playgrounds. Thanks Hermann, no, seriously!

Another example from that footbridge stuck with me: You have nothing to lose but your chains.

Last edited 3 months ago by strativarius
Reply to  fretslider
August 22, 2022 10:54 am

Up with Yazz

lee riffee
Reply to  John Shotsky
August 22, 2022 7:59 am

The other thing is that correlation does not equal causation….it is also sad that we humans have such a strong tendency to link two completely unrelated things. This was done in the Middle Ages (and later) with witchcraft. When too many babies died and when crops failed in a period of time, surely the cause must have been the spinster on the outskirts of the village with a herb garden and too many cats… And worse yet, the alleged witch gets accused, tried and put to death, and then the next year (due to random and natural weather patterns) there is a bountiful harvest. Therefore, getting rid of the alleged witch must have done the trick!
Despite the fact that even if someone had evil intentions, they could no more control the weather than can these modern day nuts who want to “do something” about climate change.

Reply to  lee riffee
August 22, 2022 9:40 am

Kamala is fortunate that she doesn’t live in those times.

That cackle of hers would have had the pitchforks & torches brigade after her in a flash.

Reply to  Mr.
August 22, 2022 10:18 am

With the left’s penchant for going backward in time for ideas (windmills), maybe pitchforks & torches can make a comeback. 😁

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 22, 2022 12:29 pm

Oh good, let them do that. I’ll keep my M1911A1 handy for that party.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 22, 2022 1:40 pm

Nah. This time around it will be firearms and body armor.

Reply to  John Shotsky
August 22, 2022 8:17 am

In science a hypothesis is capable of being falsified, otherwise it is merely a conjecture.

We joke about how anthropogenic CO₂ induced warming (AGW) seems to be capable of anything.

Seriously, until people decide how we could possibly falsify the conjecture (that the slight warming we’ve experienced is unnatural), it can’t rise to the level of a hypothesis. It’s just a sciency-sounding scary story.

We don’t need to actually falsify the hypothesis. But we for sure need to know how that it could be done.

Last edited 3 months ago by Quelgeek
Reply to  Quelgeek
August 22, 2022 9:42 am

^ 100

Reply to  Quelgeek
August 22, 2022 10:55 am

Well said that geek

Reply to  Quelgeek
August 22, 2022 12:06 pm

In science a hypothesis is capable of being falsified, otherwise it is merely a conjecture.

Splendid distinction of terms, I am going to use that.

Reply to  John Shotsky
August 22, 2022 9:57 am

Trouble is, it is not even a hypothesis, it is a conjecture. A conjecture made to support their goal of control through fear.

Reply to  John Shotsky
August 22, 2022 10:31 am

And then there are suppositions, which come from politicians, influencers, opinion makers, and the MSM. Not even as good as hypotheses.

Reply to  John Shotsky
August 22, 2022 2:43 pm

‘The science’ has been paid to demonise anthropogenic C02 as the cause of catastrophic global warming. This is reinforced by the education system and MSM. Science, education, politicians and the MSM are all largely owned by oligarchs and members of these institutions actively spruik the theory on a daily basis to ‘market’ green energy as the cure. The biggest scam on the planet.

Ulric Lyons
August 22, 2022 6:54 am


According to the way climate scientists calculate Earth’s mean surface temperature, it is 5.45°C without clouds (and without surface reflections), and -18.3°C with clouds etc. They attribute the difference between the -18.3°C and the measured temperature of around 15°C, to an atmospheric greenhouse effect of around +33­­°C in total.

And they have violated the physics twice, firstly by discounting night time and modeling the Earth as being heated from all directions all of the time, which results an equivalent black body planetary temperature 113°C too warm. And secondly by neglecting the massive heat capacity of the oceans, which keep Earth’s surface so warm during the night.

According to their method, the Lunar global mean surface temperature, including 11% surface albedo, would be close to -3°C, but it is actually around -70°C.

The sunlit Lunar surface at any given time is much warmer than on Earth, but the global mean temperature of Earth is far higher, primarily due to the oceans which barely cool at the surface at night because convection sets in and sinking colder water is replaced by warmer water from below. The largest green house gas, water vapour, keeps Earth’s daytime maximum surface temperatures lower, as it absorbs considerable amounts of solar near infrared, it only keeps Earth’s night time surface warmer, like low clouds do.

The orthodox method, solar irradiance is spread over the whole spheroid, which is called the divide ‘by four method’:

394K x 0.25^0.25 = 278.6K (Kelvin) or 5.45°C

minus the 30% albedo from cloud and surface reflection:

278.6K x 0.7^0.25 = 254.833K or -18.3°C

The correct ‘divide by two’ method for the mean temperature of the actual heated hemisphere, applied to the Moon:

394K x 0.5^0.25 = 331.313K

minus 11% surface albedo:

331.313K x 0.89^0.25 = 321.8K

and averaged with a lunar dark side mean temperature of 90K, which is dependent on the heat capacity of the Lunar regolith:

(321.8 + 90) / 2 = 205.9K or -67.25°C.


394K or around 121°C is the maximum temperature which most materials can reach at Earth’s distance from the Sun. Some metals with poor emission can get hotter. The Lunar surface is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance, so midday equatorial surface temperatures get close to that maximum. Doubling or halving it’s rotation rate won’t affect that, but it would affect the dawn and dusk terminator surface temperatures, in opposite directions.
If the Lunar regolith had less heat capacity, its dark side at any given time would be colder, but the sunlit side would be almost the same temperature.

The divide by two method for Earth, after 6% Rayleigh scattering losses by oxygen, 16% solar near infrared absorbed by water vapour, and 30% albedo reflections, and without including any longwave radiation from the atmosphere, or any evaporative surface cooling, the mean surface temperature for the sunlit side at any given time would be 285.67K, or 12.52°C. Which is just 4.5°C less than the global mean sea surface temperature. That does not leave much room for a radiative greenhouse effect.

Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 22, 2022 9:38 am

Just a little hint: the emissivity of water is 0.91, the absorptivity is 0.934. As far as water is concerned, the surface would take on ((0.934/0.91) * 342 /5.67e-8 )^0.25 = 280.5K

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  E. Schaffer
August 22, 2022 10:33 am
Ulric Lyons
Reply to  E. Schaffer
August 22, 2022 12:51 pm

Reflections reduce the shortwave input, but not the longwave output.
Just a little hint, you can assume the ocean surface reflections are included in the 30% albedo. Splitting hairs over minor issues detracts from the primary arguments.

Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 22, 2022 1:59 pm

FYI: emissivity = 1 – reflectivity

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  E. Schaffer
August 22, 2022 2:26 pm

Partially corrected:

Therefore, for any opaque object, emissivity is the opposite (reciprocal) of reflectivity, and Emissivity + Reflectivity = 100%. Similarly, for translucent objects, Emissivity + Reflectivity + Transmission = 100%”,%20Emissivity,%20Reflection%20%26%20Transmission.pdf

That would explain some shiny metals getting hotter than 121°C.
But I don’t see what the angle of incidence of the solar irradiance has to do with ocean surface emission rates?

Reply to  E. Schaffer
August 22, 2022 2:21 pm

The emissivity of CO2 is near zero. The very idea that it can do what is claimed is jaw dropping.

Michael in Dublin
August 22, 2022 7:11 am

I do not think that Michael Faraday, one of the greatest English scientists, would have been impressed by all the models reseachers produce today.

Here is a quote from one of Faraday’s letters:
Do not suppose that I was a very deep thinker, or was marked as a precocious person. I was a very lively imaginative person, and could believe in the “Arabian Nights” as easily as in the “Encyclopaedia.” But facts were important to me, and saved me. I could trust a fact, and always cross-examined an assertion. So when I questioned Mrs. Marcet’s book (Conversation(s) on Chemistry) by such little experiments as I could find means to perform, and found it true to the facts as I could understand them, I felt that I had got hold of an anchor in chemical knowledge, and clung fast to it. (my emphasis)

Good science cross-examines and tests assertions.
Bad science denigrates those who cross-examine.
Bad science thows out ad hominems, branding sceptics as climate deniers.
Good science follow in the footsteps of men like Faraday.

Last edited 3 months ago by Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
August 22, 2022 8:47 am

You may be confusing science with politics. A person with a science degree can practice science or politics or both.

Politics + Science = Politics

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
August 22, 2022 11:48 am

Predicting what might happen in a chemical reaction is one thing.
Based on that type of knowledge, we can reliably build batteries to store electricity.

That has nothing to do with the flow of time. Predicting what civilization will do with an improvement in battery capacity is totally different.

Predicting the climate in 50 years is a worthy undertaking, but is a project entirely different form studying chemistry.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
August 22, 2022 12:07 pm

There is no good reason not to experiment with some large greenhouses with increased CO2 and temperatures and seek to simulate varying weather conditions and see if this comes anywhere near what they would predict. Tens of millions spent on these experiments would be far better than trying to engineer climate at the cost of hundreds of billions indeed trillions and then discovering it was a total waste of money. They would be wiser in spending tens of millions in pilot projects relating to adapting to weather conditions and “hostile” climates.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
August 23, 2022 12:19 am

As I said elsewhere, already being done on an industrial scale by tomato growers everywhere.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Oldseadog
August 23, 2022 8:40 am

I somehow doubt this has been done with simulating varying weather conditions.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
August 23, 2022 10:54 am

You can’t simulate weather in something as small as a greenhouse.

Something the size of NASA’s shuttle assembly building is starting to get close.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
August 24, 2022 4:08 am

Problem is, their ASSUMPTIONS about what the “effects on weather” would be in a warmer vs. cooler climate are about 180 degrees wrong, so the “experiments” would all be starting with a false premise.

August 22, 2022 7:12 am

Corruption of Climate Science Supported by Flawed Models

Not to mention the, er, flawed data gathering:

“New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’ “.

And then the experts at Politico got wind of this report and (don’t laugh) fact checked it.

“Although not all temperature stations are stationed in areas with ideal research conditions, experts said those that aren’t are maintained in order to provide a consistent historical record of temperature changes over time. The data is also evaluated and adjusted for potential biases.

Research does not reflect that data used from poorly sited temperature stations yields biased conclusions.

There is widespread consensus that annual global average temperatures are rising, experts said. 

We rate this claim False.

My favourite?

Data is adjusted, corroborated and widely accepted

Brilliant, eh!

Reply to  fretslider
August 22, 2022 7:42 am

The other problem is their reliance on “experts” instead of data.
The problem with experts is that most alarmist designate experts as being any one who supports what they already believe.

Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2022 8:54 am

Exactly right
There are no data for the future climate.
There are pretend “experts” claiming to know the future climate with great certainty. And it can only get worse !.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2022 9:04 am

Libs told us not to trust gubmint & experts 50 yrs ago. Now that
they’re running the gubmint & are the self-proclaimed experts, they
censor everyone who says not to trust them. Wise people learned
from the claims of 50 yrs ago that proved to be valid & rejected
the rest. Libs did the opposite which explains the dogma of trusting
them vs relying on data that these cult leaders spew today.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
August 22, 2022 4:54 pm

I was a Democrat for one year — 1972 — when we were protesting the Vietnam war. Democrats seemed to be anti-government. I had to switch to libertarianism in 1973 to remain anti-government and pro-personal freedom.

Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2022 9:07 am

Experts like one Donald J. Wuebbles: Donald J. Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois, characterized Watts as a “well-known climate denialist.” – Politico

On closer inspection Wuebbles is pretty much the sort of scientist my gut told me he is.

developing analyses for understanding climate impacts on society and ecosystems, plus potential resilience and societal responses.”

The emphasis is usually on ‘societal responses…

Reply to  fretslider
August 22, 2022 8:51 am

The main lesson from poorly sited weather station is NOAA doesn’t care

And if all the weather stations were perfectly sited, that does not mean we can trust the national average temperature from NOAA or the global average temperature from NASA-GISS

And if the siting is perfect, and the average temperatures are accurate, we will still get always wrong wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis.

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 22, 2022 9:14 am

You’re right; they don’t care.

How do UK weather people for example keep a straight face when they announce the latest record temperature from Heathrow – adjacent to all that jet exhaust and tarmac and a small city of people in transit….

Reply to  fretslider
August 22, 2022 11:16 am

The correct approach is to write a scientific paper and submit it to a scientific journal,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist currently serving as research lead at Stripe, a San Francisco-based technology company. “In this specific case, the author of the report, Anthony Watts, submitted a paper on the topic around 10 years ago, but was unable to successfully convince other scientists of the validity of his findings and to pass the peer review process.

Is this not the paper that didn’t pass peer review?

Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, Fall et al
So much for checking facts

Reply to  Redge
August 22, 2022 11:54 am

Hausfather…. is that a Gaian priest?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Redge
August 22, 2022 10:20 pm

Hausfather has been questioning the worst alarmism lately

He will soon get his awakening moment similar to a 14 year old kmer rouge with an AK47 leading him out into the rice paddies for elimination.

There is no backing away from Scientology
He’ll be gone soon

Reply to  fretslider
August 22, 2022 4:51 pm

Mainly flawed government bureaucrat “scientists”

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  fretslider
August 24, 2022 4:09 am

Brilliant at propping up the propaganda, yes!

August 22, 2022 8:20 am

The coming climate crisis belief is not based on models. The models are programmed to support the CAGW belief. By people who are hired and paid for having that belief. Other than the Russian INM model, no other model even attempts to make accurate predictions. And the Russian model gets almost no attention, because it does not predict CAGW..

The climate computer games are props used for CAGW propaganda. They will never make accurate predictions because the people who program them are paid to make scary predictions. So that’s what they do. There is no penalty for making always wrong scary predictions. Promotions are possible.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 22, 2022 3:48 pm

The INM model is as ridiculous as all the others – useless junk. And don’t tell me that SPS8.5 is unrealistic because CO2 is tracking at the level that SPS8.5 is based on.

The only thing that really differs between models is the present temperature. That ranges over 3 degrees but they all have similar warming rates everywhere across thew globe – just nonsense.

Reply to  RickWill
August 22, 2022 4:50 pm

The INM model is the least inaccurate.
I stated in an earlier comment that was caused by a lucky guess or extrapolating the 1975 to 2022 warming trend. It could not be “accurate” by design because there are too many unknowns about the causes of climate change.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 22, 2022 6:14 pm

The INM model is the least inaccurate.

The INM model is as bad as the rest. Using the term “inaccurate’ is not appropriate. They are all WRONG because they have no relevance to the physics of Earth’s climate. A monkey with a dart has higher probability of getting some future temperature right than a climate model because the monkey has no bias. Climate models are no better than random number generators with a warming bias.

This is the FGOALS random numbers:

This is ACCESS:

This is GISS:

This HadGem:


No climate model shows the Southern Ocean is cooling as it must do because the solar intensity in the Southern Hemisphere has been declining for 500 years and will continue to decline for another 9,500 years.

No climate model shows zero trend in the NIno34 region as it must have because it is in the temperature limiting zone of the tropical oceans. On a monthly basis, the surface temperature of the Nino34 region is negatively correlated with Solar EMR.

Reply to  RickWill
August 23, 2022 11:20 am

To their credit, all models predict warming and there has been warming. They could have predicted cooling !

How can you say: “A monkey with a dart has higher probability of getting some future temperature right than a climate model because the monkey has no bias.”

There are two basic questions:
(1) Warming or cooling in the future?
(2) Fast or slow climate change?

Every model answered the first question correctly, it seems. Do you really think monkeys can do better than that?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 24, 2022 6:46 am

We don’t KNOW the future, as you seem fond of saying, so NO model HAS “answered the first question correctly.”

The model that SEEMS to, as of right now, “answered the question correctly” may in fact have answered it INCORRECTLY, as the “future” continues to “develop.”

August 22, 2022 8:54 am

The Russian IMN4, or is it nor INM5, seems quite accurate when compared to UAH
satellite data and low when compared to all other models. Why?

Reply to  DHR
August 22, 2022 1:11 pm

Either a lucky guess or extrapolating the 1975 to 2022 global warming trend. Very unlikely to be accurate by design, No one knows exactly what every climate change variable does. So no model can know.

Reply to  DHR
August 22, 2022 1:15 pm

The Russians, despite their other faults, did a solid job constructing a cohesive climate model. They didn’t adjust the models for an output, but built the model on known effects.

Reply to  DHR
August 22, 2022 6:35 pm

The Russian IMN4, or is it nor INM5, seems quite accurate when compared to UAH

satellite data and low when compared to all other models.

No it’s not. It is as bad as the rest. Attached compares INM output (middle) with NCEP measured SST at top and RSS measured at the bottom for the Nino34 region. RSS is basically the same as UAH but gives the actual temperature rather than an anomaly. Both UAH and RSS are measured way up in the atmosphere so only have a passing resemblance to surface temperature. The NCEP reading is from satellite and buoy observations.

Screen Shot 2022-08-23 at 11.27.45 am.png
Reply to  DHR
August 23, 2022 7:35 am

The Russian IMN4, or is it nor INM5, seems quite accurate when compared to UAH

satellite data and low when compared to all other models. Why?

It’s a moot point anyway, because they are comparing 2 different things. Models project surface land temperatures; UAH covers lower troposphere land and ocean.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  DHR
August 24, 2022 6:47 am

Probably because it assigns the smallest value to “sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2.

August 22, 2022 8:59 am

Hello everyone,

I’ve been doing a bit of research on the U.S. climate and what I’m surprised to find is that the U.S. warmest year on record is 2012, still. However, these past few years have exceptionally warm trailing close to, but not breaking 2012’s record temps. This is intriguing. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think this is further evidence that rules out CO2 as the primary cause of warming. I would like to know what’s going in the U.S. climate however as there must be a separate explanation. I’ve noticed where I live our summers are much warmer and that could be tied to this drought that we’re having in the Western US. I’m really curious and this could help our better understanding of the climate system and possibly our projections of whatever future climate has in store for us.

Last edited 3 months ago by walterr070
David Dibbell
Reply to  Walter
August 22, 2022 9:27 am

Please consider these findings I posted as a comment a few weeks ago, as a response to your point “…there must be a separate explanation.”

Also very interesting is this paper by Keeling and Whorf, 1997. “Possible forcing of global temperature by the oceanic tides”

Reply to  Walter
August 22, 2022 10:49 am

I think it would serve you to look at historical records of 1934 and 1936 before accepting the warmest year being 2012. As far as I can determine, the 1930’s was the warmest, well-documented decade with a lower CO2 level than today.

You are correct that CO2 has very little to do with temperatures but there is a political movement to obfuscate and censor that information. It is a movement designed to promote fear and lead to more government control of social and industrial activity.

As previously stated, the Russian IMN 4 model is the closest to match observed data. Why more “climate scientists” haven’t adopted this model is political not scientific.

Here’s an article that may help your research:

Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 22, 2022 12:06 pm

Ken Lay, when at Enron, dreamed up Cap-And-Trade. I believe he had previously been at Department of Energy. Dept of Energy has on its face a mission, but it is part of government. If you assumke that politicians would be inspired to devleop more to govern over in order to have more political power, then DOe as a political animal starts to make sense…
Figure out how energy might need to be regulated, and use govt to exert power over that industry.

Cap-And-Trade: Lay and others developed this idea, then pushed it at Kyoto 1992, birth of Kyoto Protocol.

Cap And Trade takes “global warming” and turns it into government regulation, which builds govt power, and builds wealth for some.

Cap and trade basically says each nation has an energy expenditure budget.

A country’s economic activity, such as that measured by GDP, is heavily related to using energy. Energy is used in all heavy industry, and as ealth grows, people want more things to enjoy in life with their newfound wealth, and so buy electronic products. So, consumer market is correlated with energy consumption.

So, if you can dictate how much energy a country can burn, you are basically limiting their economic activity. To have more economic activity, the country has to abide by your cap and trade rules.

So, Cap and Trade governs the overall level of economic activity.

David Dibbell
August 22, 2022 9:16 am

But how could so many leading scientists be wrong? /sarc

I keep going back to these visualizations from space, composed from radiance data in the same part of the infrared spectrum at the edge of the “atmospheric window” from which the concern over CO2 arises.

Grasp what is happening, and lose the fear of non-condensing GHGs.

The atmosphere is the perfectly authentic model of its own heat-engine performance, and we can all “watch” the resulting motion and the highly variable infrared output in high resolution in near-real-time.

These visualizations show it does not end up looking like a “trap” at all.

About the brightness temperature color scale: the radiance at 30C (bright yellow) is 10 times the radiance at -90C (white.)

The models cannot come anywhere close to the real thing.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  David Dibbell
August 24, 2022 6:52 am

One of my favorite sayings – “Trapping heat with CO2 is like trying to trap mice with a chain link fence.”

August 22, 2022 10:17 am

Another major flaw in GCMs is that they calculate internally the water vapor level. Water has been measured and reported monthly. The measured WV is more than possible from just feedback. They also don’t include ocean oscillations which the AMO dominates. Optimal combination of these and solar input results in 96% match to measured average global temperatures. .

This graph shows measured WV being substantially more than the maximum possible from just feedback from average global temperature increase.

TPW meas & UAH thru Dec 2021 6.7%.jpg
Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
August 22, 2022 10:41 am

Well the warm AMO phase increases the water vapour, and the warm AMO phase is a direct response to weaker solar wind states since 1995, via negative NAM conditions. So the whole thing is an amplified negative feedback, with considerable overshoot.

August 22, 2022 10:17 am

The doomsday narrative of global warming is fundamentally analogous to the doomsday narrative of anti-semitism in Nazi Germany. The public is made fearful of a supposed threat to civilization, verified by a pseudoscience, and moved to support a government and an industry mobilized to combat the threat. The real motive, possibly, is that the powers that be believe that a catastrophic crash of the increasingly precarious world financial system can be averted only by the growth of new massive industrial investment afforded by ‘renewables’.

Last edited 3 months ago by astrodreamer
Reply to  Mark Shulgasser
August 22, 2022 4:43 pm

Create fear until people demand that their government “do something”
The strategy of totalitarians

August 22, 2022 10:43 am

One modeling failure not mentioned often enough is that most cannot accurately simulate actual temperature. So not only do their alleged “anomalies” run hot, they can’t even tell or agree on the “average” temperature, much less location-specific temperature histories. I’ve read and understand the arguments for using anomalies, but losing track of actual measured temperatures is a smoke screen for data and model manipulation and a drift from reality.

When I look at tomorrow’s local weather forecast, I don’t see predictions of tomorrow’s temperature anomaly, nor would that have any meaning.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Pflashgordon
August 22, 2022 2:10 pm

They are playing games with physics to get the same or similar modeled climate metric responses from an average 12℃ world as they do from an average 15℃ world. Lies, damned lies and UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Pflashgordon
August 23, 2022 5:49 am

Climate is based on the entire temperature profile at a location. When you create a daily mid-range temperature (which is not really an average temperature) you lose that climate profile. Multiple different ranges of temperature (i.e. vastly different climates) can give you the same mid-range temperature. You no longer know the standard deviation or variance of each mid-range temperature. When you then uses those daily mid-range temps to create a weekly or monthly “average”, you lose the variance/standard deviation of the daily mid-range temps. Then when you average the monthly values you lose even more data about the actual climate at a location. Average those over a number of years to create a base with which to calculate anomalies and you lose even annual variance/standard deviation.

This leaves you with anomalies that actually tell you NOTHING about the climate at a location. You don’t know if max temps are going up/down, min temps are going up/down, or if there is a combination of the two. Thus how do you make any kind of informed judgement as to what climate change may be?

August 22, 2022 10:50 am

America has a problem with honesty; too many people are willing to lie for money.

Sadly this includes too many university researchers and government bureaucrats. We now know we can’t even trust MDs and the CDC.

The problem with Climate models isn’t even the tip of the iceberg.

Dishonesty has become deeply set into American society & personal character and is slowly turning us into a completely failed empire, just one more corrupt oligarchy of organized crime.

Reply to  tgasloli
August 22, 2022 3:01 pm

Sadly, it’s not just America. It really is a global problem.

August 22, 2022 11:07 am

Imagine the theory of gravity being determined by a partisan vote.”

Or how about adopting a theory about the origin of the universe due to the august authority of a favored theoretical physicist?
Apparently images from the WEB telescope have caused astronomers to doubt the Big Bang occurred.

Many scientific fields have become popularity contests. Too much politics and not enough data gathering.

Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 22, 2022 12:11 pm

We believe everything in the universe came from a very small dot.
Yet we will not believe that Noah got 2 of each animal on a large boat.

Which sounds more unlikely?

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
August 22, 2022 4:40 pm

How about “We don’t know?”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 22, 2022 2:12 pm

Opinions should change as data-gathering instruments improve.

Reply to  Dave Fair
August 23, 2022 2:49 am

Conclusions should be based on data with the accuracy needed to make such a conclusion. Opinions do not matter.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 24, 2022 7:00 am

And since they HAVE NO data with the accuracy needed to make “conclusions” about the “climate,” they shouldn’t be making any such “conclusions,” and should CERTAINLY NOT be using their “conclusions” that they shouldn’t be making as a basis for POLICY.

Shoki Kaneda
August 22, 2022 11:26 am

Corrupt science, conducted by corrupt opportunists posing as scientists, using corrupt models, and colluding with corrupt politicians.

I think I see a trend.

Izaak Walton
August 22, 2022 2:13 pm

This is just more conspiracy theory nonsense. The author is simply asserting without a shred of evidence that climate scientists are corrupt and deliberately producing false results in order to gain research funds. Take the claim that “In simple terms, the models are designed to exaggerate the potency of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.”

Now where is the proof of this? Climate models are open source and the source code can be easily found on the internet. See
for example. If these models are deliberately written to be wrong then the author should be able to point to the lines in the code where the physics is wrong and say why.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 22, 2022 4:39 pm

We don’t need to study the computer code
We review the actual predictions
They consistently over predict the rate of warming,
excluding one Russian model
Therefore, the models are just computer games
Wrong predictions have no consequences.
And wrong predictions are not science.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 22, 2022 9:46 pm

There is a difference between a model being wrong due to a mistake or flaw and one that is “deliberately designed” to exaggerate the warming. Claiming it is deliberate deception is implying a conspiracy of scientists worldwide involving thousands of people who are hiding it in plain sight in the source code available for download.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 23, 2022 2:46 am

If the predictions average too much warming for decades, and are revised to predict even faster warming (CMIP5 to CMIP6), while the least inaccurate model — the Russian INM — gets almost no attention, it is an easy conclusion that accurate predictions are NOT a priority.

And if accurate predictions are not a priority, then it appears scary predictions are the goal. To make scary predictions, the models MUST be designed to over predict the rate of global warming. And that is exactly what they do, with the one exception of the Russian INM model … which in a world where accuracy mattered, would be getting perhaps 99% of the attention, rather than1%.

We do not need the model source code.
That code is obviously wrong because the predictions are wrong.

The predictions have been consistently wrong because those are the predictions “management” wants. A model will predict whatever the “management” paying the salaries of the programmers want predicted.

The fact that not enough is known about the many causes of climate change to create an accurate model is very important. The primary science fraud is to imply that the future climate is predictable with any model, based on the available climate science, which has too many unanswered questions. And that assumes the future climate would ever be predictable, even with perfect science, and perfect models.

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 23, 2022 5:29 am

Willis did just that in a post on here with one such model, dissected code and he showed how the modelers just put kludges all over the place to prevent the models from running away on specific tangents.
So they input starting conditions and then put hard road blocks to prevent it from going even further into LaLa land.

Without those walls the “scientific” models would should 2c rise per decade likely.

This is your “science”. All crap all the time.

August 22, 2022 2:40 pm

Plausible, but not probable, and not actual outside of a laboratory or virtual climate. At best, a propagation of perturbations, at worst, a progression of errors.

August 22, 2022 3:06 pm

Anyone who claims predictions are remotely accurate from a model of any non-deterministic system, which is what climate is, with so many co-linear variables, which is exactly what climate models have, does not deserve to be called a ‘scientist’. It is a plain fact that confidence intervals for such a model will be so bad that the results they produce will be no more accurate than tossing a pair of dice.

It doesn’t matter how powerful your computer is, these are basic principles that can never be addressed. That’s it. End of the matter. Anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a fraud. Take your pick.

Reply to  MarkW2
August 22, 2022 3:58 pm

It is a plain fact that confidence intervals for such a model will be so bad that the results they produce will be no more accurate than tossing a pair of dice.

The CMIP5 models don’t have confidence intervals. Instead they rely on a multi-model range. Observations are well within this range for global surface temperatures.

You can deny that until your heart’s content; but you’re not fooling anybody who’s paying attention.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 22, 2022 4:55 pm

LOL.. Multiple WRONG models.. average to give total JUNK..

The range is so large that it is like the side of a barn.. and they still mostly miss reality ! Like a blindfolded monkey !

The MMM is Meaningless garbage.

Real observations are well below the meaningless model mean and are tracking the zero-CO2 increase “Hansen” model.

Climate models of future temperature are probably the biggest HOAX ever perpetrated on science..

Only a totally anti-science fool could put any meaning or relevance to them.

Last edited 3 months ago by bnice2000
Reply to  b.nice
August 22, 2022 5:02 pm

And NO , real temps are NOT within the range of Chimp5 models.

Reply to  b.nice
August 23, 2022 4:14 am

Those aren’t surface temperatures, they’re one part of the troposphere and the data are years out of date.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  b.nice
August 23, 2022 5:31 am

He meant they are within the range of adjusted temperatures.

Reply to  b.nice
August 23, 2022 4:17 am

You need to familiarise yourself with the CMIP5/6 concept. No model is expected to exactly replicate observations due to natural variability. They explain this in the IPCC reports but unfortunately that requires you to read them.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 23, 2022 10:57 am

Only in model science does one expect to average a lot of wrong answers in order to get the right answer.

Reply to  b.nice
August 23, 2022 10:56 am

The models are so bad, they have to cook the data to make it look like the models are anywhere in the ballpark.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 23, 2022 1:26 am

Of course they don’t have confidence intervals because if they did the models would be shown to be useless for accurate predictions.

What climate ‘scientists’ are doing — and what you’re claiming to be an alternative to confidence intervals — is total and utter nonsense.

A total and utter fudge, fraud even.

Reply to  MarkW2
August 23, 2022 4:16 am

They don’t have confidence intervals because they rely on discrete runs. Instead they use multiple runs with different inputs. Observations are well within the 5-95% multi-model range and close to the multi-model average, as expected.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 23, 2022 10:58 am

They don’t have confidence intervals because even they don’t have any confidence in them.

Lindsay Moore
August 22, 2022 4:24 pm

It is, in reality quite simple
Weather is a function of atmospheric dynamics.
Climate is a function of the whole earth system which is dominated by oceanic physics.
In terms of the whole system, the atmospheric effects are inconsequential as the thermal mass of the oceans is dominant (x1000)
Weather doesn’t affect CLIMATE
The tail doesn’t wag the dog!

Reply to  Lindsay Moore
August 22, 2022 4:34 pm

Climate change has many causes.
Oceans are one of many variables.

The atmospheric effects can not be defined precisely
Therefore your “inconsequential” claim is an unsupported personal opinion

Average weather over a long period of time is climate

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
August 22, 2022 5:12 pm
John Larson
August 22, 2022 5:39 pm

Mr. (if I may be so bold ; ) Wrightstone; “With the enthusiasm of religious zealots…”

What makes you think they are not actual religious zealots? Because they happen to belong to your religion? Ascribe to your beliefs about this world/universe we find ourselves in, which you prefer to see as “materialistic only”?

I suggest “worshipping” the god of random chance as the mindless creator of everything, is effectively a religious practice, based on faith in a great many things which have not/cannot be observed.

And, I suggest this “materialism only” religion has no inherent constrains of things like selling out to the providers of funding. For within this religious belief system, all one can ever experience is what happens to oneself while one is alive in the biological sense . . and “survival of the fittest” is the only commandment.

Thus, if being materially secure requires some degree of “sacrifice” in the realm of ethics/morality, some will inevitably find that sacrifice acceptable.

August 22, 2022 6:33 pm

I understand that there is a place for models, they are used and are useful for countless purposes. That is if they are used honestly. A model like so many other tools is only as good as the information entered into it and the caliber of people running it. I am tired of green devils or others for that matter saying the models say this or the models say that. They don’t say a damn thing, they are a tool. It would be just as meaningful to say the beaker says this or that. The beaker doesn’t say anything, it holds the contents put in it, the end result may be informative or even beneficial or the contents may be useless but still informative because we now know what doesn’t work. Models are useful when used properly just like a beaker or a 9/16” hand tool.

spangled drongo
August 22, 2022 7:11 pm

Oh, look! Some past [warm and dry] climate change:

Falling water levels of river in China reveal three Buddhist statues (

Ronald Van Wegen
August 22, 2022 8:08 pm

“In the 16th century, Martin Luther freed millions from the tyranny of a corrupt church by refusing to recant what he knew to be true. He managed to avoid torture and death by fire for his alleged heresies. Others were not so fortunate.”

Oh, for Pete’s sake. You just destroyed your entire argument with historically ridiculous hyperbole. Stopped reading there and then as you became untrustworthy. Luther went on to recommend mass killings of peasants. Yeah, he was a real nice guy. Do better, and whatever you do, don’t throw in Galileo. You’re sure to get that cliche just as wrong.

August 22, 2022 10:25 pm

I thought up a fair analogy last night.
Nobody wants their house to burn down, so we take precautions. If we feel there is extra risk for some reason, we take extra precautions. If we are a bit neurotic about the house burning down, we take extra extra ridiculously extravagant precautions…
But we don’t wake up each goddam morning screaming “FIRE!!!” the way the climastrologists do.

Peta of Newark
August 23, 2022 12:21 am

This is all you need to know – don’t ‘exaggerate’ it any further…
Quote:”In simple terms, the models are designed to exaggerate

The Models are formalised Chinese Whispering – with the added empowerments of:
a/ nobody knows what was originally ‘said to the computer’
b/ the devices themselves have been given all the power of an infallible God

A Perfect (haha) Storm

Give them no sympathy. None. The Sputniks neither
Those are false gods and will destroy their own worshippers

August 23, 2022 1:26 am

Not so much “flawed” or “models” or even “modele” as “fabricated linear progression styled propaganda”

Old Cocky
August 23, 2022 1:46 am

<pedantry>Ross McKitrick is an econometrician, so is more likely to describe himself as an applied statistician than a scientist</pedantry>

August 23, 2022 4:09 am

There is no Climate Crisis and hasn’t been one for millions of years, if ever. The problem is in our heads.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  pochas94
August 24, 2022 8:26 am

And unfortunately in governments in much of the world…

Steve G
August 23, 2022 5:00 am

Even well meaning highly educated people tell me that “output” from climate models is “data”.

Danley Wolfe
August 23, 2022 8:08 am

We all learned about the Catholic church in 1615 convicting Galileo Galilei for supporting heliocentricism – the Copernican claim that the earth circled the sun and not vice versa … and for that he spent the rest of his life in prison for being a heretic. Watch you backs, all who dare speak out against the official story line of the climate gestapo.

%d bloggers like this: