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
- New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- arn on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- John McLachlan on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Allan Shelton on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
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