Dear NNS,

Con 10 says “Predictions of accelerating human-caused climate change are based upon computerized climate models that are inadequate and incorrect. “

Well no they are not as detailed in my link to you but let's put tha aside for one moment.

The prime supporting statement for the above contention is;

“Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes.”  [58]

Well all good thus far because they have provided a reference number for the statement which you can see is number 58.

When I click the link I get the following reference;

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, “The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%,’” wsj.com, May 26, 2014

Fine. I google the reference and find it is a Wall Street Journal article which can be found here;

http://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

The trouble is when you read it it actually says absolutely nothing about a failure of climate models to “simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods” at all.

So I am in your hands. I don't feel that the case has been substantiated to any degree whatsoever by the material provided. Do you?

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

So you read the first bit but managed to completely ignore where I expanded the point?

Sure.

“In this case the dodgy characters at realclimatescience.com decided that instead of doing like for like and linking to the BOM's Annual Max Temp Anomaly graph they would link it to the Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly. Why? Because the Annual Mean is more pronounced than the Annual Average graph which suited their purposes.”

Then you deflect from answering by shooting off another serve. Therefore I will ask you directly, why do you think the characters at realclimatescience.com decided not to show like for like graphs?

To SteeleRedux.

Thankyou for providing the info on the first reference. I was unable to access it due to not having a Wall Street journal subscription. However the rest of the points in con argument 10 has article references that all agree to the computer models being wrong and over exaggerated. Here is the rest of the argument for con point 10 in the pro/con article. I've used brackets { } to given a brief detail over each reference mentioned and to point out where those references point to. Here is the reminder of the argument that global warming models are basically useless.
__________________________________________

A 2011 Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science study using observational data rather than computer climate models concluded that "the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity" and overestimate how fast the earth will warm as CO2 levels increase. [75]

{comment found in abstract, introduction and conclusion of the paper. PDF of paper can be found at
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf }

Two other studies using observational data found that IPCC projections of future global warming are too high. [76]

{seems to use observational data already recorded over 2 periods of times instead of projected models as the means of the paper. Unfortunately I don't understand the data and language enough to understand if it differs from a compute projected model, or if they just aren't using models so that their data wouldn't be compromised. The PDFs of the paper can be found at http://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lewiscurry_ar5-energy-budget-climate-sensitivity_clim-dyn2014_accepted-reformatted-edited.pdf }

[97]

{paper identifies a difference between the 2 projected models by IPPC that are greatly exaggerated on the temperature and aren't confirmed by observations. The paper tries to present a simplified model that would project temperature risings more accurately, which do suggest a much cooler temperature estimate in future years then the exaggerated. Paper can be found at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2 }

(Continued)

(Continued from before to SteeleRedux. Article and references on argument # 10 in Pro/con arguments over global warming)

In a 2014 article, climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer, PhD, concluded that 95% of climate models have "over-forecast the warming trend since 1979." [77]

{shorter article with a graph as the single point of reference for data points out how wrong the climate models are compared to observations. The observations lead the article to conclude that the data does not support policies to freeze global growth (especially for poorer countries) based on global warming. Article can be found here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/ }

According to Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg, Tim Ball, PhD, "IPCC computer climate models are the vehicles of deception… [T]hey create the results they are designed to produce." [78]

{the article questions both the models and the accuracy of data those models are based on. Basically that the models are in wrong going so far as attributing them to "Garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO), and questioning whether the data for the last 100 years from weather stations can accurately measure global tempatures, as there aren't enough stations in enough locations to give that kind of global data. The article can be found here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/16/a-simple-truth-computer-climate-models-cannot-work/

It's funny but not surprising that Mr. Opinion left the building after being confronted to make use of his degree and profession. Or to be useful at all in this conversation. Though I disagree with Steele Redux on his stance on global warming and his trust in the IPPC models, at least he's stuck around to confront the data and critisms head on. That's something worth noting and applauding. Regardless if I disagree with him,