97% of climate models are completely useless. The other 3% are as accurate as a stopped clock.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “what the science shows”
- Causes Of Earthquakes
- Precision Taxation
- On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Demise Of The Great Barrier Reef
- Net Zero In China
- Make America Healthy Again
- Nobel Prophecy Update
- Grok Defending Climategate
- It Is Big Oil’s Fault
- Creative Marketing
- No Emergency Or Injunction
- The Perfect Car
- “usually the case”
- Same Old Democrats
- Record Arctic Ice Growth
- Climate Change, Income Inequality And Racism
- The New Kind Of Green
- The Origins Of Modern Climate Science
- If An Academic Said It, It Must Be True
- Record Snow Cover
- Stopping Climate Misinformation
- Arctic Ice Free In Two Years
- “Decades Of Scientific Research”
- The Atlantic : Tesla Bombings Not Politics Or Terrorism
Recent Comments
- arn on “what the science shows”
- Bob G on Causes Of Earthquakes
- Bob G on “what the science shows”
- conrad ziefle on On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Tel on “what the science shows”
- Solar Mutant Ninjaneer on On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- conrad ziefle on On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- conrad ziefle on Precision Taxation
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Earthquakes
- conrad ziefle on “what the science shows”
To repeat– anyone– check out Dr. Judith Curry’s Comments to Congress at Climate Depot.
J. Currie did a nice job. I like averaging the estimates because, as we know, the more wrongs you have the righter the answer.
I’m pretty sure we can get to within ±1.0000m of the true length of the Emperor’s (may His glory live forever!) nose just by asking the commoners & averaging the results. If 97% of climate science-guys can’t get within ±10° over the next 20 years with the same methods, no-one can.
> 97% of climate scientist’s favorite color is $gr€€n$.
> 97% of historical climate data adjustments are unjustified.
> 97% of raw data is missing, locked away, or deleted.
Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
The truth comes out!
If I was a climate alarmist that top graph would be just so, so embarrassing.
The only part of the model output that comes close to the observed data are the hindcasts, expertly fitted to the real temperature data.
I agree with that comment – and I’d specifically like to see just what the real forecast for those models was in say 1985 or 1990 and not with the hindcasts fitted. I think the contrast between expectation and reality would have been even more dramatic.
I have accurately hind cast every Super Bowl and World Series. Check please!
Climatologists are in trouble. The hits just keep on coming. Even though I’m loathe to trust anything published by these guys, because they write one thing and then say we are still doomed!!
http://m.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0116/Surprise!-Old-growth-trees-are-star-players-in-gobbling-greenhouse-gas