climate models

The difference between the real world and the modeled world has already existed for 30 years. Unfortunately, instead of getting smaller due to a proper validation process, this difference has become bigger.

Increasingly absurd disaster rhetoric is consistently contradicted by climate and weather reality.

A new study in the scientific journal Review of Environmental Economics and Policy shows integrated assessment models (IAMs)—models that consider the interaction of physics, demographics, and political and economic actions and responses that affect greenhouse gas emission scenarios in addition to the physical climate system—“have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis.”

You want to listen to this podcast with Heartland’s H. Sterling Burnett, and Heartland friend Big Joe Bastardi.

President Trump said Thursday that the United States formally will withdraw from the Obama-era Paris climate accord. Despite the decidedly shrill cries made by environmental groups claiming withdrawal from the accord will spell doom for Earth’s climate, the poorly negotiated treaty would have done very little to avert global warming and would have hurt everyday Americans struggling to pay their bills and seeking to find high-paying jobs.

While some social scientists continue to undertake purported survey’s of the literature they claim show almost all scientists agree humans greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous climate change, real climate scientists are showing the climate is far more complex than climate models and those who rely almost solely on them to predict climate disaster acknowledge.

Every week almost new research is published showing gaps in our knowledge concerning the causes and consequences of climate change, gaps: limits in knowledge, flawed assumptions, new data contradicting old research, that climate models either fail to account for or simply get wrong.

Hardly a month or even a week goes by without a new study
coming out examining another natural factor scientists have found that provably affects temperature or climate — a factor neither the climate models, nor the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have or, perhaps even can, account for.

A group of noted scientists, filed a friend of the court brief supporting the position of the 27 states challenging the clean power plan as unlawful. The scientists note the…

Wemple can’t be bothered to discuss the simple scientific fact that for decades climate models have been spitting out unskillful, basically wrong forecasts. This proves—logically proves—that the models are flawed, that they are in error, that they should not be trusted until they are fixed.

Government-funded climate alarmists claim their forecasts of dangerous man-made global warming relies on “settled science.” Their “settled science” is a mare’s nest of computer models, resting on a few match-sticks of science, surrounded by tall forests of uncertainty.

Why did Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore leave the organization? It became anti-science and anti-human. He’s righteously disgusted about it.

Be scared, the experts tell us, be very scared. Well there is certainly cause for concern, but not about those “rising” temperatures, which refuse to confirm researchers’ computer models. A far bigger worry is the corruption that has turned ‘science’ into a synonym for shameless, cynical careerism.