Unless You Have Faith In The 0% Of Climate Models Which Are Correct, You Are A Flat Earther

ScreenHunter_340 Jun. 26 13.41

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means « Roy Spencer, PhD

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Unless You Have Faith In The 0% Of Climate Models Which Are Correct, You Are A Flat Earther

  1. Latitude says:

    I posted this to Laz/TOO…..while you posted this….here’s as good a place as any

    “”””You have no idea how you guys look to normal people…

    You’re saying a bunch of weathermen and computer geeks can predict the weather…

    When their computer games have been 100% wrong about everything…

    You don’t even realize when you defend their missing heat…..You’re admiting they were wrong before….yet, you still argue they were right

    • gator69 says:

      They believe synchronized head nodding is science. And they believe the adage that if you tell a big enough lie, and repeat it often enough, it will become fact.

      • Latitude says:

        and even more stupid….when they argue Arctic ice is melting faster than the computer games said it would…….fail!

      • Olaf Koenders says:

        “..that if you tell a big enough lie, and repeat it often enough, it will become fact.”

        That’s how my ex GF used to argue all the time. CAGWists argue just like girls.. 😉

        • gator69 says:

          Well they sure don’t argue like men! 😆

          I have often compared them to children, who like to tell each other scary stories for pure titillation, and who eventually believe in their own fabricated boogeymen. But you are right, they also argue like women, who lead with their “feelings” rather than facts.

  2. mikegeo says:

    I think you’ll like this one. Obama obviously didn’t bother to check if the Flat Earth Society had a view on AGW. They do.
    http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/flat_earth_society_believes_in_climate_change/

  3. CheshireRed says:

    That graph is so shaming. It ought to be front-page news across the globe. It ought to be triggering inquests throughout a humiliated media. Hacks, advocates and politicians should to be queuing to offer world-wie repentance, to apologise to the people they’ve systematically misled – and fleeced of literally untold billions these last 2 decades.

    It ought to, but such is the state of politicial hubris across the world, they not only ignore this utterly damning evidence, but they carry on regardless. Prison is too good for them.

  4. tckev says:

    Sorry but the Flat Earth Society is the climate modelers with their model rationalizing reducing the spherical earth to a disc that is a ¼ of the diameter of the real earth, constantly irradiated by a ¼ of our real sun’s output 24/7 with no day/night cycle.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Not saying that nobody ever constructed such a model as you state but are you sure of these parameters being used? I am aware of the crude back of envelope calculation using earth’s projected area for incoming short wave radiation and earth’s surface area for outgoing long wave radiation to space; the calculation where they say greenhouse gases warm earth by 30C or thereabouts.

      • tckev says:

        But that is the basics before all the tweaks get done.
        They start from the idea of the planet as a blackbody and the amount radiance it gets from an invariable sun. This rationalizes effectively as I have stated to get some figures on how much energy hits the earth from the sun.
        After that all the tweaking, forcing, adjustment and all the stupidity is thrown at it to get the model to fit. It fails of course.

  5. That’s unkind Steve. 3% of the models aren’t doing too bad.

  6. Robert Austin says:

    Good discussion about that solid black line (ensemble mean) over at Judith Curry’s. rgbatduke wrote an essay on why the ensemble mean is “meaningless” total crap science. There are a few half-hearted attempts by the usual suspects at salvaging some value in the idea of taking an average of different models but I think Dr. Brown made his case in a convincing manner.

  7. David in Georgia says:

    The problem with this graph is that it shows the mean estimate of each of 73 models, along with the average of those estimates. It does NOT include the error levels built into those estimates. With wide error ranges, the models assume everything from unbelievable levels of warming to a slight cooling. So, they can’t be wrong at this point because the basically predict that damn near anything can happen.

    By using a whole host of “projections” and not throwing out projections based on scenarios that are not happening, the Scientific community is acting just like a Sideshow Psychic. They predict that “someone” in the crowd recently lost a loved one – and that someone is troubled by a secret. They don’t need any kind of specific skill to predict that.

    The fact that the predictions (sorry, projections) start off fairly flat for the first 50 years or so then slowly accelerate is very telling. They don’t have to care what the temperature does while they’re still trying to earn a living. In 40 years, if it’s wrong, it will be someone else’s mess to clean up.

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