3 ways 'climate change' models are dead wrong

3 ways 'climate change' models are dead wrong

Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation:

"...we are persuaded by the empirical evidence that human use of fossil fuels causes very little global warming, the benefits of which probably exceed the harms of which, while the benefits of the energy derived from those fossil fuels far outweigh whatever net harms might arise from the slight warming their use causes.

"Notice the stress on empirical evidence. The only grounds for fears of dangerous man-made global warming are predictions made on the basis of computer climate models of how the world's climate responds to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. But as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman famously put it, if our prediction 'disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.'

"One could go into enormous detail comparing model predictions with real-world observations, but the summary is this:

• On average, they predict twice the warming actually observed over the relevant period.
• Over 95 percent predict more warming, not less, than actually observed. If their errors were random, they would as frequently predict less as more. That they don't implies that their errors are not random but driven by some kind of bias, whether intentional and dishonest or unintentional and arising simply from misunderstanding, widely shared among the modelers, of how the climate system works.
• None of them predicted the complete absence of statistically significant global warming stretching back 18 years and 9 months, to February of 1997.

"In short, the models are wrong. They therefore provide no rational basis for any predictions about future global average temperature and consequently no rational basis for any policy related to such predictions."