When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?

In any other area of the ‘sciences’, observations and data would be rigorously checked against the hypothesis and corrected accordingly. Not so in the elite ‘science’ of global warming, climate change, climate disruption, where such discovery is immune and condemned.

Too much money and too many reputations within the climate industry are now at stake, to uphold the most basic of scientific methods – the verification of data.

Sad and dangerous times for all the sciences indeed.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Patrick J. Michaels

Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.

The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.

michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-realityThe picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.

The blue circles are…

View original post 241 more words

4 Comments on “When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?”

  1. “By an unproven hypothesis,
    We’ve been taken in;
    Consensus and settled,
    Are so much political spin.
    The misinformed tricked
    Into so easily believing;
    Fear and ignorance, it seems,
    Are so good at deceiving….”
    From “The Integrity of Real Science”
    Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-JJ

    Liked by 1 person

  2. When do any politicians say they are wrong? When they have no other choice. But so long as grant money keeps pouring in, why on earth would they tell the truth?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Climatism says:

      …as well, there are far too many jobs and reputations at stake for a rational re-think, as science would demand. And this is precisely why ‘climate change’ aka ‘global warming’ is not about science, rather a moral code or plausible substitute for the faith-based religions that have since wained particularly in the west over the past 30 or so years…


  3. Kuni Leml says:

    Funny thing there about this latest chart making the round.

    So much for the BS that the chart is the average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models.

    A call to Easterbrook inquiring as to where he got the chart resulted in a “I can’t find it anymore. It must have been removed.”

    After some searching, the chart that is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models” is in fact the output of a SINGLE model, the HadCM3 temperature simulation which depicts individual model global temperature change simulations to greenhouse gas changes only, rather than simulations responding to changes in the total global radiative forcing. It represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols.

    So when will the CATO Institute, and everyone else who got conned into repeating this BS, be saying that they were wrong?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.