Inconvenient Truth of Alarmists’ failed predictions

Inconvenient Truth of Alarmists’ failed predictions

Source: Living GreenWhy do people still listen to the alarmist scientists? Their threats of doom and gloom have failed to materialise over and over again.TIPPING POINT.Take for example the threat of the tipping point. It has not happened in all the long long time of the world’s existence. It didn’t happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 7000 ppmv, so why would it happened with CO2 at four hundred ppmv?That point alone should make the alarmists objects of ridicule.97% CONSENSUS.All alarmists who mention the consensus should be laughed out of the room, have their grants taken away. This false consensus has been exposed many times in many places.Lawrence Solomon, back in 2010 wrote (link)This number (97%) will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. See also the many links to 97% consensus on this blog.TIM FLANNERY.Look at Australia’s Mammologist Tim Flannery. Andrew Bob has exposed many of Flannery’s flawed failed predictions: (link)After all, Flannery once claimed the Arctic ice could melt completely away by, er, last year.He claimed Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane could be all out of water by, oops, a couple of years ago now.Yet no matter how many dud predictions Flannery makes, almost no scientist ever corrects him.It’s as if they don’t care how wrong he is in the warming cause.Would you buy a used car climate prediction from this man?GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS.I used to keep track of the weather predictions on a calendar, adding the next days predictions etc. It used to look like thisMON……TUES……WED……THURS……FRI…..SAT…..SUN….Rain       Clearing    Fine       Showers     cold     showers  fine             Rain       Clearing    Fine       Showers     Fine    showers                           Rain       Clearing    Fine        chilly     Fineetc etcIt’s no wonder that the GCMs used to project future climate are just as disastrous.95% OF CLIMATE MODELS AGREE: THE OBSERVATIONS MUST BE WRONGNO SNOW.How about Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia who said:  Within a few years children just aren’t going to know what snow is. Snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event. What happened? Just last winter: (link)LONG-RANGE weather forecasters have warned that Britain should prepare for heavy and persistent snow for up to THREE MONTHS with winter 2013 set to be the worst in more than 60 years.ICE FREE ARCTIC. How many times have you heard that the Arctic will be ice-free by…..For instance, take this report from …

WSJ: The public isn’t buying billionaire Tom Steyer’s anti-energy climate activist agenda

WSJ: The public isn’t buying billionaire Tom Steyer’s anti-energy climate activist agenda

A Climate Crusader’s Comeuppance
Billionaire Tom Steyer’s vow to make politicians toe the green line isn’t working out so well.By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Aug. 14, 2014 7:22 p.m. ET    THE WALL STREET JOURNALAs political comedowns go, there may be few to compare to the humbling of Tom Steyer. Six months after the climate activist roared on the national political scene vowing $100 million to impose his agenda on this fall’s midterms, it would appear that this billionaire don’t hunt.Remember the liberal huzzahs that greeted the February pledge? The New York Times gave Mr. Steyer the front page, heralding a coming “hard-edge campaign of attack ads” that would pressure officials to “enact climate change measures” and persuade voters to back a climate agenda. Democrats hailed him as their new power broker, crowing about a war chest that could rival the Koch brothers and even up the midterm election odds. Environmentalists welcomed a white knight who would finally align the party and public behind their priorities.Or not. Mr. Steyer at an Aspen conference this week revealed that little if any of this is happening. The left is as split over energy as it has ever been; the public isn’t buying the climate line; and the hedge-fund-manager-turned-activist looks to be regrouping.

Tom Steyer at a public event in Richmond, Va.The Steyer grand plan began unraveling from the start, when stories about his pledge noted that he might target Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu for her support of the Keystone XL pipeline. Mr. Steyer and his NextGen Climate Action PAC had in 2013 won activist praise for defeating a pro-pipeline Democrat in a Massachusetts primary, and the Louisiana idea was to start his midterm strategy with a similar litmus-test bang. A Landrieu attack would send a message: Democrats who bucked the climate agenda would get beaten, whereas those who embraced it would be rewarded with Mr. Steyer’s campaign cash.Democratic leaders instead flipped out, and quickly schooled Mr. Steyer in the political realities of red states and the magic Senate number of “51.” Within days of the pledge, Steyer operative Chris Lehane was tamping down the Landrieu story, insisting Mr. Steyer did not plan to “tea party” Democrats. “We do think it’s really, really, really important from a climate perspective that we maintain control of the Senate for Democrats,” he explained.Overlooked was that …

Climatologists: ‘A Clear Example of IPCC Ideology Trumping Fact’ — ‘Give impression that climate models perform a lot better than they actually do’

So let’s review.

1) Examining 108 climate model runs spanning the period from 1951-2012 shows that the model-simulated trends in the global average temperature vary by a factor of three—hardly a high level of agreement as to what should have taken place among models.

2) The observed trend during the period 1951-2012 falls at the 16th percentile of the model distribution, with 18 model runs producing a smaller trend and 90 climate model runs yielding a greater trend. Not particularly strong agreement.

3) The observed trend has been sliding farther and farther away from the model median and towards ever-lower percentiles for the past 15 years. The agreement between the observed trend and the modeled trends is steadily getting worse.

4) Within the next 5 to 15 years, the long-term observed trend (beginning in 1951) will more than likely fall so far below model simulations as to be statistically recognized as not belonging to the modeled population of outcomes. This disagreement between observed trends and model trends would be complete.

So with all this information in hand, we’ll give you a moment to revisit your initial response to this question:

On a scale of 1 to 5, or rather, using these descriptors, “very low,” “low,”  “medium,”  “high,” or “very high,” how would you describe your “confidence” in this statement:

The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend.

Got your final answer?

OK, let’s compare that to the IPCC’s assessment of the situation.

The IPCC gave it “very high confidence”—the highest level of confidence that they assign.

Do we hear stunned silence?

This in a nutshell sums up the IPCC process.  The facts show that the agreement between models and observations is tenuous and steadily eroding and will be statistically unacceptable in about a decade, and yet the IPCC tells us with “very high confidence” that models agree with observations, and therefore are a reliable indicator of future climate changes.

Taking the IPCC at its word is not a good idea.…

Paper: Earth has been getting hotter for past 10,000 YEARS, contradicting studies that humans started global warming

Scientists ran simulations of climate influences and each on revealed global warming occurring over the last 10,000 years.

Professor Liu explained that we know atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 20 parts per million before the 20th century, and the massive ice sheet of the Last Glacial Maximum has been retreating.

These physical changes suggest that, globally, the annual mean global temperature should have continued to warm, even as regions of the world experienced cooling, such as during the Little Ice Age in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries.

Read more: