Climate Change Panic-mongers Use Irrelevant Data; An Example of the Scam

One graph to rule them all. From the Master Resource blog:

global warming v models

This provides pretty much all you need to know about the Climate Change hype. Look at all of the flying lines, demonstrating what the alarmist models predicted. Then look at the lowly blue and green lines depicting reality—and especially take note that it’s even heading DOWN at the end, not up.

But this is not a graph you will see in the mainstream media. Instead you will see something like this:

north america temp

Dr. E. Calvin Beisner writes:

First, the claim was that the models “do a good job at reproducing the broad features of the present climate and changes in climate, including the significant warming that has occurred over the last 50 years.” But the graphic shows only 25 years, 1980–2005.

Second, as Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist in climatology at the University of Alabama, puts it, global climate models … are known to have essentially zero skill for regional (e.g. U.S.) predictions.” This means the moderately good fit between observed and modeled temperatures in the NCA’s graphic is likely to be mere coincidence. This is all the more likely since the globe as a whole was warming from 1980 through 1997 (excluding the anomalous 1998, extra warm because of an exceptionally strong El Niño).

Third, although not explicitly stated, the claim is that global climate models “do a good job.” But the graphic shows only North America. Global surface is 21 times North American. If the whole globe is warming, it’s likely that particular regions are warming; but the reverse isn’t true. Showing, then, that North America was warming (and only for half the period in question) doesn’t imply that the models’ predictions of warming for the whole world are reliable.

If the warming hysteria and rush to crush our economy is based on the models these people developed—which are clearly and completely wrong—then why are we even still talking about this subject? Unless… unless… there’s another agenda, that depends not on the scientific truth, but PR and public gullibility.