The climate models that predicted a very small natural variability and that were used to fit the hockey stick temperature records cannot fit the recent proxy GST reconstructions casting doubts on their accuracy. __ Earth Science Reviews
Something wonderful happened on the way to the officially predicted global climate oblivion: Global temperatures mysteriously stabilized, confounding the assumptions of climate science and contradicting massively expensive supercomputer-fueled climate models.
Well-funded, well-connected inner circle climate scientists bemoan the disjunction between their CO2 model-based public pronouncements and the actual temperature observations in the real world. These powerful quasi-cabalists of climate treat real world observations as a crisis, to be explained away or somehow surmounted with sleight-of-hand pronouncements of mystical deep sea sequestration of “missing heat.”
If these “scientists” were following genuine scientific principles, however, they would be rejoicing in this amazing opportunity to re-examine their assumptions, and to go back to the drawing board in order to generate new hypotheses to test. That is the way science is supposed to be done, after all. Real scientists do not become so attached to a particular hypothesis to the point that they are unable to move on when it is obvious that other, more important factors are at work than their pet hobby horse. This should be true even if such “scientists” have achieved a measure of prestige, fame, and job security from riding such a hobby horse.
… from 2000 to 2013.5 a GST plateau is observed while the GCMs predicted a warming rate of about 2 °C/century. In contrast, the hypothesis that the climate is regulated by specific natural oscillations more accurately fits the GST records atmultiple time scales. For example, a quasi 60-year natural oscillation simultaneously explains the 1850–1880, 1910–1940 and 1970–2000 warming periods, the 1880–1910 and 1940–1970 cooling periods and the post 2000 GST plateau.
… modern paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions showing a larger preindustrial variability than the hockey-stick shaped temperature reconstructions developed in early 2000 imply aweaker anthropogenic effect and a stronger solar contribution to climatic changes. The observed natural oscillations could be driven by astronomical forcings. The ~9.1 year oscillation appears to be a combination of long soli–lunar tidal oscillations, while quasi 10–11, 20 and 60 year oscillations are typically found among major solar and heliospheric oscillations driven mostly by Jupiter and Saturn movements.
Solar models based on heliospheric oscillations also predict quasi secular (e.g. ~115 years) and millennial (e.g. ~983 years) solar oscillations, which hindcast observed climatic oscillations during the Holocene. _Nicola Scafetta _ quoted in GWPF
The IPCC sits at the crux of multiple international networks of governmental and non-governmental climate change activism. The long range goal of this coalition of government insiders and big money activists is to achieve the power to shut down the industry (and economy) of large western societies. This grand crusade is being carried out under the flag of “environmentalism” and “science.” But like all large government and big-money backed movements, its true aim is power, control, and more wealth for insiders.
To accomplish these grand goals, affiliated “scientists” are willing to make a religion out of particular pet hypotheses, whether or not objective observations support those hypotheses. One interesting window into the motivations of these “scientists” is the Climategate phenomenon. The Climategate emails display the depths of willful deception and anti-scientific manipulation that IPCC affiliated “climate scientists” are willing to contrive and carry out.
Real scientists would have jumped at the chance provided by the model – observation disparity. They would have rushed to re-examine assumptions, and would have envisaged large numbers of new hypotheses that could be tested against existing and new observations. Clearly, the current batch of insider “climate scientists” is no good, and will have to be tossed in the bin, while genuine science has a chance to clean the taint of politics and quasi-religion from its midst.
But is it possible to clean the taint of power-hungry politics from science while so much of science is being funded by government and quasi-government? A very good question.
In the meantime, genuine climate scientists who have been marginalised by the powerful IPCC insiders and large affiliated funding agencies continue to pursue alternative hypotheses which appear to fit the observed data over long time intervals.
… around 2000 hockey-stick shaped GST graphs implied a very small natural climatic variability (and a small solar effect) and a strong anthropogenic effect on climate. That evidence was consistent with the outputs of preliminary energy balance models, and is still consistent with the predictions of the CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs. However, recent paleoclimatic GST graphs have demonstrated a far larger preindustrial natural climate variability. The new evidence shifts the scientific paradigm. The climate should be highly sensitive to solar /astronomical related forcings because the novel GST reconstructions show a large millennial cycle that well correlates with solar/astronomical records … __Scafetta Earth-Science Reviews