From ‘No Frakking Consensus’, something worth reading, and believing! Unlike the unscientific garbage being promulgated on the mainstream media by paid and partial, agenda-driven spokespersons.
As the gap between its models and reality has grown, the IPCC has become more adamant that its conclusions are correct – rather than more cautious.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims to be a rational, scientific body. But when scientists worthy of the name are wrong, they admit it. The IPCC does the opposite.
Once you peel multiple layers off the global warming onion, you’re left with computer models. According to these models, the small amount of warming that results when humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere is supposed to be amplified by other factors. It isn’t the CO2 itself but this amplification that the IPCC believes will lead to dramatic rises in temperature and dangerous consequences.
But here’s the problem: even though the real world hasn’t behaved as expected, the IPCC continues to cling to its position with a fervour that can only be described as religious.
The thin lines represent 73 different climate model results, with the solid black line being the mean. The blue squares represent satellite measurements, and the green circles represent weather balloon measurements.
Hayden then added red arrows to Spencer’s graph, along with text boxes indicating the language the IPCC has employed over time.
See the complete article here.
- Forecasting Expert: UN IPCC climate modeling procedures need serious re-modeling (climatedepot.com)
- Ronald Bailey Wonders If the U.N.’s IPCC Climate Models Can Be Trusted (txwclp.org)