Experts under fire for releasing a report which claims the global warming models are wrong

  A new global warming report entitled “Why Models Run Hot: Results from An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model” which was coauthored by four experts is now calling into question the models which are being used to predict global warming.

  Here is more:

Dr. Briggs, who has a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics from Cornell, was assistant editor for the Monthly Weather Review, and is widely published on matters concerning climate. He explained that for decades “the computer climate models on which the IPCC and others rely, make forecasts where the temperature will be way up there. But, the reality is the temperature has been way down here. So these models are running hot!”

The reason that the models are running hot is based on a “firm scientific principle,” says Briggs. “If a model is making bad predictions, which these climate models are, the theory that underlies them must be wrong. So these models must be wrong.”

Briggs explained that atmospheric reaction to carbon dioxide, known as climate sensitivity, is probably too high for these models. “If you take this climate sensitivity model and tone it down, you get a much closer match to reality.” He contends that the computer models are overcompensating for the addition of CO2’s to the atmosphere. 

 You can read the full report here.

  Because this report runs counter to the global warming agenda the coauthors of this report have been under attack.

Briggs and his colleagues were smeared by the New York Times, the Guardian, theWashington Post and the Boston Globe because the revealed errors suggest that there is no climate crisis after all.

Although their findings weren’t that controversial scientifically, it was “unwelcome news” to the IPCC and other “Global Warmists”—“and that’s when the whole thing began to blow-up,” Briggs said.

Briggs  elaborated that his paper has been downloaded 10,000 times, making it one of the most downloaded reports on climate change ever. But the statistician acknowledged that a lot of money and careers are on the line, largely relying on the premise that the planet is heating up.

Consequently, he said, reporters from the aforementioned media outlets have done their best to smear the authors’ names. Moreover, they made attempts to get Soon and Legates fired from their jobs. Accusations were made that the authors wrote the paper for financial gains. Yet, no money was ever given or received for writing it. Briggs said the reporters “did not want to believe the truth I was telling them.”

  This is a typical response by people with so much riding on pushing an agenda–money, power, and control; they are not interested in the truth or the possibility that the logic or the models they have been using are flawed so instead of trying to prove this report wrong they resort to trying to discredit or intimidate the messengers into silence–in this case by trying to get two of them fired from their jobs. 

  We have been told time and time again by the global warming alarmists that this is settled silence but recently it has been alleged that NASA has been changing the temperatures of previous years in order to make it appear as if the earth is warming when it might not be. How can the science be settled if the temperatures are not? If the debate is over it is only because the global warming alarmists are not allowing any more debate.

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium