Kesten Green, Scott Armstrong and Willie Soon write in the Financial Post:
We tested our no-change model using the same data that the IPCC uses. To do so, we produced annual forecasts with no trend from one-to-100 years ahead starting from 1851 and stepping forward year-by-year until 1975, the year before the current warming alarm was raised. We did the same for the IPCC scenario of temperatures increasing at a rate of 0.03°C per year in response to exponentially increasing human carbon dioxide emissions. This procedure yielded 7,550 forecasts for each method.
There are no scientific forecasts of dangerous global warming
The results? Overall, the no-trend forecast error was one-seventh the error of the IPCC scenario temperatures. The no-trend forecasts were as accurate or more accurate than the IPCC scenario temperatures for all forecast horizons. Crucially, the relative accuracy of the no-trend forecasts increased for longer horizons — for example, the no-trend forecast error was one-twelfth that of the IPCC scenario temperatures for 91-to-100-year ahead forecasts.
“Must be exposed”: It took me 3 minutes to find pretty well described model [1]
“the contribution of CO2 to global climate is so small as to be unmeasurable”: well… not really [2]. By the way I recommend:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
[1] Johns, T. C., et al. “Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under updated emissions scenarios.” Climate Dynamics 20.6 (2003): 583-612.
[2] Cox, Peter M., et al. “Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model.” Nature 408.6809 (2000): 184-187.
What peer reviewed journal published this work?
It is high time to take down the climate modelers. The details of modeling assumptions must be exposed. It is clearly GIGO but us skeptics must make it clear to one and all what the “garbage in” consists of. I assume that a chief component is some sort of algorithm which postulates a ratio of so much CO2 increase to so much temperature increase, when, in fact, the contribution of CO2 to global climate is so small as to be unmeasurable.
I would say that it’s more and more clear that climate science is political science.
In other words, we really don’t have all the climate drivers known and in hand.