I’ll Accept Being Called A Skeptic For Looking At Real World Data

Coyote Blog has a great point regarding one of the Climategate 2.0 emails

I normally object to the ways in which global warming alarmists portray skeptics.  But I will accept this from Phil Jones

They [skeptics] mostly look at observation papers and ignore modelling ones, as they believe by default models are wrong!

I can’t count the number of times I’ve derided the silly “50-100 years out” notion when it comes to anthropogenic global warming. That time period comes simply from models (and wishful, unscientific thinking), yet, these same Warmist models never seem to be able to project what is going to happen in the short term. Furthermore, their “models” did not account for the current 10-15 year stagnation of global temperatures. It sure can’t account for having 2-4 years of cold, snowy winters. Or 1/3 of monitoring stations recording decreases in temperatures. Computers are only going to give out based on what is put in, and, if they tend to ignore things like the Sun, water vapor (the number 1 greenhouse gas), and, yes, real world data, it’s garbage in/garbage out. The models are designed to prop up a dying cult in order to keep the money train a rollin’.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “I’ll Accept Being Called A Skeptic For Looking At Real World Data”

  1. mojo says:

    Because models of a radically non-linear system (mumble “chaotic” here) are, by necessity, crap.

  2. Stix says:

    But But Manbearpig is Real I am serial We must find him

Pirate's Cove