You can be like most AGW assholes and bury your head in the warm sand, or you can be like many money grubbing
AGW climate modelers who could not find their way out of a paper bag with scissors and a match, or you can accept that I just laid out the absolute fact to you.
AGW climate modelers can not understand why and where their «warming» went.
Not exact matches
(1) In this case even if they were correct and the models failed to predict or match reality (which, acc to this post has not been adequately established, bec we're still in overlapping data and model confidence intervals), it could just as well mean that
AGW stands and the
modelers have failed to include some less well understood or unquantifiable earth system variable into the models, or there are other unknowns within our weather /
climate / earth systems, or some noise or choas or catastrophe (whose equation has not been found yet) thing.
Inasmuch as essentially all of the IPCC claims of
AGW attribution, the projections of future
climate changes and the resulting recommendations to policymakers are based on GCM simulations, this is a fairly damning conclusion that will not make many
modelers (and certainly not IPCC) happy.
This is an enormous factor in
climate science and paleo - climatology that tends to be completely ignored by CO2
AGW activists and their EDP
modelers.
One study showed that
climate modelers were largely in agreement with
AGW, but that a majority of
climate scientist empiricists were in disagreement with
AGW.
What we see is that stochastic forecasts of The Old Farmer's Almanac are more accurate than the deterministic projections of the Global
Climate Modelers of
AGW.
This total denial of easily observed reality is a sad commentary on the computer
climate modelers, who often seem to be verging on the psychotic... and as the story goes, what's the difference between a neurotic
AGW supporter, a psychotic
AGW supporter, and Al Gore?