An alarmist prediction so bad, even Gavin Schmidt thinks it is implausible

Temperature divergence between climate models and observed reality, leading to ever more catastrophic and alarmist climate predictions by the day!

Watts Up With That?

Gosh, it’s that “methane ‘splode” again. This time the Guardian makes an easily testable hypothesis emblazoned in the headlines that we’ll be sure to remind them of in two years.


Even Gavin Schmidt is panning this one, see below. From the University of Cambridge

Cost of Arctic methane release could be ‘size of global economy’ warn experts

Economic modelling shows that the methane emissions caused by shrinking sea ice from just one area of the Arctic could come with a global price tag of 60 trillion dollars — the size of the world economy in 2012

Researchers have warned of an “economic time-bomb” in the Arctic, following a ground-breaking analysis of the likely cost of methane emissions in the region.

View original post 684 more words

Mike Hulme: Nuccitelli “97% consensus article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed”

Eco-alarmist Dana Nuccitelli’s “97% consensus” study – a failed marketing ploy to bolster a failing CAGW theory. A divisive disgrace and another blow to the integrity of science.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

josh-treehouse*THWACK*  Take that Dana. 

From Warren Pearce’s posting of Ben Pile’s excellent article at ‘Making Science Public

Mike Hulme July 25, 2013 at 6:39 am

Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it.

View original post 316 more words

Aussie warmists: We use climate models because ‘no time travelling climatologists’

Study: Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations.

  • 98% of the IPCC’s CMIP5 climate models are wrong. Study shows ‘selection bias’ is one reason why they fail catastrophically i.e. feed crap in, get junk out.
  • Overheated climate models ensure the grant-funding gravy train alive as well aid in reassuring policy makers and the public that all CACA forecasts are still projected to play out, thus ensuring the ‘act now’ meme.
  • All catastrophic climate projections, eco fear-mongering, alarmist news articles and extreme reports are based entirely on unverifiable predictive models which do not accord with observed reality.

No… climatologists use climate models because they want grant money.

View original post 24 more words