Two days ago we were offered up a glimpse of a new study that basically said that the previous models were utter trash, as Skeptics have been noting for years and years. And now the spin starts
New Climate Study Doesn’t Contradict Global Warming, No Matter What Breitbart Says
….
Things went totally off the rails from there. “The scientists who produce those doomsday reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have finally come clean—the computer models they’ve been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong,” bloviated The Sun. “Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming,” Breitbartpiled on.
It got so out of hand that the University of Oxford-based researchers released a statement yesterday disavowing the idea that we now longer need to take aggressive action to reduce carbon emissions, followed by a response article in The Guardian this morning.
Here’s what really happened. …
You know some serious spin is coming your way.
Whether the authors are correct in their baseline or not, the study’s message isn’t that it’s time to rest on our laurels if we want to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. But that misleading message was compounded when some outlets keyed in on a suggestion in the paper that climate models have “overestimated” warming by 0.3 degrees C, taking this to mean that temperatures are not rising as quickly as the IPCC says they are. Not only was the paper was not intended to assess discrepancies between climate models and observations, its findings are in line with the IPCC, a fact which the authors readily admit.
That is exactly what the study was saying, prior to the spin starting.
“Out predictions for warming rates over the coming decades are identical to those of the IPCC,” study authors Miles Allen and Richard Miller wrote in the Guardian.
The IPCC models are well over what the actual observations ended up being.
Comparing models with observations isn’t always an easy or even a good thing to do.
This entire schtick is based on models. And when the observations don’t agree, the observations are changed, not the model outcomes.
Still, the essential conclusion of this new study didn’t differ all that much from those that came before it: We need aggressive carbon reductions immediately if we want to keep climate change to a minimum.
When will Gizmodo give up their own use of fossil fuels and go carbon neutral?
Current and former NFL players campaigning for racial equality and criminal justice reform 
From my vantage point outside the glass doors, the sea of grey hair and balding pates had the appearance of a golf society event or an active retirement group. Instead, it was the inaugural meeting of Ireland’s first climate denial group, the self-styled 
The Washington Post Editorial Board has decided to have a snit fit over the case of St Louis officer Jason Stockley shooting and killing Anthony Lamar Smith. The headline read 
(
(
Amazon recently sent state and city officials across the country scrambling to respond to 
In Federalist No. 68, his pseudonymous essay on “The Mode of Electing the President,” Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Electoral College could shield the United States “from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” Because of the “transient existence” and dispersed makeup of the electors, he argued, hostile countries would find it too expensive and time-consuming to inject “sinister bias” into the process of choosing a president. At the time, the new American leaders feared meddling from Great Britain, their former colonial master, or perhaps from other powers such as France, and they designed a system to minimize the prospect that Europe’s aging monarchies could seize control of their young democracy.
