Jeff ID writes in “ClimateGate, a Year of Comedy” (H/T: Flopping Aces) about the hilarious “climate experts” who are still, STILL, trying to play the AGW game:
Gawd it’s funny to see grown men caught red handed with their mitts in the cookie jar of fraud, claiming vindication and seeing them be supported by the media, government and industrial institutions. All these reviews taught us was that the corruption of reality extends much farther than a few people. Again – we already knew that. But the lies will continue as Mann publishes one politically laced self-exonerating editorial after another. Like a pile of four-year-olds, climate scientists haven’t learned anything from ClimateGate other than the obvious – don’t get caught!! I have news for everyone though, ClimateGate was the tip of the iceberg and ClimateGate II is coming soon. I don’t have any information different from anyone else on where, when or whom, what I have is a brain smart enough to openly analyze the evidence and the evidence says that climate science is far more corrupted than we have seen yet. We aren’t done with this trip. …
C3 Headlines (H/T: Soylent Green) points out that the IPCC has documented major flaws in their own models:
Predictive capabilities are non-existent … Now we see that the IPCC has documented the gross inadequacies of their virtual modeling, yet they keep publicizing the model output as realistic catastrophic scenarios. And, adding misery to insult, there are the flim-flam academics pushing the climate model predictions as a religious gospel, totally misleading the gullible and naive flock (i.e., MSM journalists and Hollywood celebrities). Besides the IPCC documented flaws, below is a listing of major climate model shortcomings.
Fifty predictive failures. Yet, according to Pachy and the IPCC,
Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption caused by Evil Human CO2 Emissions dictates we live in a cave and give trillions to Internationalist Kleptocrats. “Consequently, for models to predict future climatic conditions reliably, they must simulate the current climatic state with some as yet unknown degree of fidelity.”
(H/T for the post’s subject line: Watts Up With That?)