Scientific Study Proves Liberal Climate Change Models Are Wrong

Another day, another reminder that the self-proclaimed party of science is a fraud.

The Daily Caller reports that Springer Nature has published a study, which you can read for yourself by clicking here, that pours more cold water on the climate models the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to scare the world into believing that our planet was heating so rapidly that the human race was living on borrowed time.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models,” University of Oxford geosystem scientist Myles Allen said. “We haven’t seen that in the observations.” The climate models that have been taken as gospel by the Left failed to predict that global warming would take a break for fifteen years.

“The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions. … So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower,” study co-author Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter said, according to The Washington Post.

Most climate models over-predicted the amount of warming during the early 21st Century. From 1998 to 2014, there wasn’t much of an increase in global average surface temperature readings. Satellite data showed a more than 20-year “hiatus” in warming.

However, scientists have debated whether or not the “hiatus” in warming was due to instrumental errors or natural climate variations the models didn’t take into account.

Co-author Joeri Rogelj of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis told WaPo the sophisticated climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “tend to slightly overestimate historical warming, and at the same time underestimate compatible historical CO2 emissions.”

“These two small discrepancies accumulate over time and lead to an slight underestimation of the remaining carbon budget,” Rogelj told WaPo. “What we did in this study is to reset the uncertainties, starting from where we are today.”

Potsdam Institute scientist Stefan Rahmstorf is calling into question the findings of this study, claiming that it “adjusted the budget upward based on the idea that there has been less observed warming than suggested by the climate models, but that is not actually true if you do the comparison properly.” Still, this is far from the first piece of evidence debunking the models:

Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have noted the climate models have been over-hyping warming for decades. Scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville has testified before Congress on the matter […]

This study is only the latest to confirm the “hiatus” happened. This author and atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue wrote about the new “consensus” on global warming in the wake of a June study by prominent climate scientists.

That study found “satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.”

So the data behind the conventional wisdom is a crock, and in fact the “conventional wisdom itself” is largely fictitious. As MercatorNet editor Michael Cook explained in detail back in 2014, the endlessly-repeated statistic that 97% of scientists agree agree with the Left on climate change is a lie. The source is an article from the journal Environmental Research Letters making that claim, but it turns out they arrived at that number by a method that’s anything but scientific:

Cook et al sought the opinions of the authors themselves. This could be construed as a kind of ballot measure. There were 29,083 authors listed on the 11,944 papers. Of these, only 8,547 were sent an email asking for their opinion. Of these, only 1,189 responded. Using this method, Cook and his team found that an even higher proportion of them agreed that climate change was real and man-caused – 97.2 per cent. But notice that only four per cent of the authors ‘voted’. A ballot measure with a four per cent turnout is not what Mr and Mrs Average mean by a ‘consensus’.

Gee, no wonder climate alarmists would rather throw conservatives in jail than debate us.