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
- It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Climate Grifting Shutting Down
- Fundamental Pillars Of Democracy
- An Inconvenient Truth
- Antarctic Meltdown Update
- “Trump eyes major cuts to NOAA research”
- Data Made Simple II – Sneak Preview
- Attacks On Democracy
- Scientists Warn
- Upping The Ante
- Our New Leadership
- Grok Defines Fake News
- Arctic Meltdown Update
- The Savior Of Humanity
- President Trump Explains The Stock Market
- Net Zero In Europe
- The Canadian Hockey Stick
- Dogs Cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes And Droughts
- 50 Years Of Climate Devastation
- Climate Cycles
- Hiding The Decline
- Careful Research At BBC News
- New Video : Man Made Climate Emergency
- Geoengineering To Save The Planet
- Geoengineering Genocide
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- dearieme on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Mike Peinsipp on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- arn on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- arn on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Mac on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- mwhite on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Denis Rushworth on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- arn on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- D. Boss on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
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….