Climate Models Provide No Rational Basis for Predicting Future Global Average Temperature

E. Calvin Beisner

For years I have been pointing out that the super-sophisticated computer climate models on which the IPCC, national environment agencies, national academies of science, and of course the many climate-alarmist advocacy groups and journalists depend for their predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)

• predict, on average, 2 to 3 times the warming actually observed over the relevant periods;
• that they failed to predict the complete lack of statistically significant global warming from about early 1997 to … whatever the end date, right up to late 2015 (after which a super-El Niño shortened the “pause” for a few months, though rapid cooling in May/June and the likelihood of a strong La Niña taking over is likely to restore the “pause” to full length and then draw it out longer);
• and—my focal point for this blog post—that 95% predict more warming than observed, which implies that their errors are not random (in which case they’d have been about as frequently below as above, and by about the same amounts) but driven by some kind of bias (whether honest mistake or dishonest fudging) written right into the models.

From these observations I’ve inferred that the models provide no rational basis for any prediction about future global average temperature, and from that the conclusion that they also provide no rational basis for any policy.  Plenty of folks, held in thralldom by the mystery of computers and white-coat-clad scientists, have wondered how the models could be so systematically mistaken.......To Read More....