The failure of 95% of climate models has made the IPCC 95% certain that the models are correct.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
Recent Comments
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- MLH on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gordon Vigurs on Perfect Correlation
- Jack the Insider on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Terry Shipman on “Earlier Than Usual”
- arn on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Earlier Than Usual”
95% is the closest number divisible by 5 to 97% that is the psychological maximum of credulity.
They need to find another 0.4 degrees of cooling of the past to push current “departure from average” into the mid range of the models. I’d be on the lookout for a recut of historic (1983 – 1998) temperatures once again. Excuse will be “old data was incorrectly tabulated”.
Reblogged this on CACA.
I am guessing they have not revealed the forcing assumptions of the three models that are on track.
Must be working, we’re not warming… ROFL…
Just think of the “constructive” things that money could do….
The only place there’s a “fit”….is where they hindcast
Learning from their mistakes? Or something….