The public has no clue what a mathematical model actually is, how they work or what they can and can not do.
When evaluating extremely important information do you rely on shaky data or unverified research? That’s what climate campaigners and their cheerleaders in the press and politics are asking us to do on climate.
BY TOM HARRIS & Dr. JAY LEHR: The global climate scare – and policies resulting from it – are based on models that do not work.
The NCA warns of what "might" happen, while 84% of its Key Messages are based on highly speculative modeling of worst case future scenarios.
It’s the latest in a slew of studies trying to figure out how much warming can be expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. The answer: not much, according to Lewis and Curry.
This noted astrophysicist / geoscientist has lost patience with global warming dogma.
A major new study says that the cost to meet the UN Paris Agreement's target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C is a whopping three times the cost to limit it to 2 degrees. That is a huge cost for a very small difference.
Something like 55% of the modeling done in all of science is done in climate change science, even though it is a tiny fraction of the whole of science.
More than 70 percent of climate models underestimated the amount of rain compared to real world observations.
Brace for a climate of hysteria.
Global warming is based on global statistics that have little credibility.
Scientists, policy experts and interested people are gathering at the Berlin Marriott Hotel on November 11th and 12th for a climate and energy conference presented by EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy and co-sponsored by CFACT.
“Uncertainties in the adjustments to our global temperature datasets, the small amount of warming those datasets have measured compared to what climate models expect, and uncertainties over the possible role of Mother Nature in recent warming, all combine to make climate change beliefs as much faith-based as science-based."
Computer models that have been over-predicting global warming for at least six decades.
Why ignore the best available world temperature data? Because it does not show any warming. That's where science ends and propaganda begins.