Global Warming Trend 'Only 1/2 of the Climate Model Simulations' Says New Paper

>"The total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model simulations," the STAR researchers note. "Possible reasons for the observation-model differences in trends may include climate model biases in responding to external forcings, deficiencies in the post- millennium external forcings used in model simulations, phase mismatch in natural internal climate variability, and possible residual errors in satellite dat sets." Translation: The models simply run too hot, the historical inputs like volcanic aerosols and ozone to the models may be wrong, a temporary natural cooling trend could be masking warming, and adjustments t the satellite data may be wrong.

Climate change denial has never been a good look, but we're well past plausible deniability now.

The author is not a scientist, wrote a book called »Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death« and he cites only one single paper. Totally untrustworthy

This is a pretty neat example of how to mislead using distracting piles of real data and technical jargon. It immediately dives into lots of studies and graphs which are all valid. But if you strip that away and look at the core argument, it is:

1. Climate researchers project temperature will increase by X%.

2. Historical data shows an increase smaller than X%.

3. Therefore the projections are wrong.

Once you reduce it down to that, the key flaw in the argument is more obvious: 3 only follows from 2 if you assume that the rate of temperature increase is unchanging. But the article itself even includes a quote that "tropospheric warming is accelerating". The whole point of fears about climate change is that the change is accelerating.

Or, by analogy: I project that my height in ten years will not have increased at all. However, looking at the historical data, I clearly grow about 2.25 inches per year. Therefore, Bailey would claim that my projection is bullshit.

Well, actually, no. My projection is correct. My rate of growth changed (in this case a rapid deceleration) around the age of 18.