climate models

Two new studies are throwing cold water on the argument humans are causing dangerous climate change.

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.”

A new paper in Nature: Geoscience acknowledges what climate realists have long pointed out: Climate models grossly overstate the amount of measured warming and, in particular, they fail to account for a recent 18-year period in which carbon dioxide emissions rose, yet there was an extended pause in surface warming.

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.

Climate change is real and has happened throughout history on local, regional, continent-wide, and global scales, driven by a variety of atmospheric, cosmic, geologic, and meteorological factors.

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.

In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, James Wanliss, professor of physics at Presbyterian College (Clinton, SC) and senior fellow with The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, joins host H. Sterling Burnett to talk about the climate change debate and how we still can not trust climate models.

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…

FACTS: The globe is not warming alarmingly. In fact, it has been cooling for at least a decade. Sea levels are not rising abnormally. Fossil fuels are not a significant Climate Change factor. There is no empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis. Our national energy policy is in disarray.

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.

Unlike the alarmists — who all sing in perfect harmony about man-caused climate calamity from the group-think hymnal — the scientists who speak at our conferences don’t all agree on everything. That’s the nature of bringing together scientists who study the climate from diverse disciplines. That’s healthy for science, as well as the goal of advancing greater public understanding of what is actually happening to the climate.

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.

Is man-made global warming a crisis? Don’t just wonder about it, understand it yourself. Read one or a few chapters of one of the NIPCC reports, and ask if what you read is logical, factual, and relevant to the debate.