World’s Top Climate Scientists Admit “Computers” Got Global Warming Wrong

World's Top Climate Scientists Admit "Computers" Got Global Warming Wrong  | global-warming-hoax-460x287 | Environment Global Warming Fraud News Articles Science & Technology Special Interests

If Climate Gate didn’t silence the great global warming cult, then perhaps this will.  Climate scientists themselves now admit their calculations on global warming were WRONG, though they divert blame to glitchy computer models.  The reality is that all mainstream climate science to date has been fraudulent, and the fact that organizations like NASA and the CRU continually refuse to release the source data for their experiments to the public proves that they have been at least partially if not fully aware of the fraud.  Man-made climate change has been used as an excuse to fashion draconian environmental regulations that if implemented, will essentially tax the very air we breath, and set into motion the fantastical lie of “carbon pollution”, which regards the very act of human existence as a threat to the stability of the Earth’s biosphere.  It’s an elitist’s wet dream.  Thankfully, the Liberty Movement and legitimate researchers have exposed the scam, making the enforcement of carbon controls on a wide scale almost impossible.

Read the leaked IPCC Report here:

Climate Scientists in Australia are claiming that the leaked report has been misrepresented by “skeptics”.

Doctor John Cook, Research Fellow in Climate Communication at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland claims that news sources misquoted a .2C per decade temperature rise in the 2007 IPCC Report.  However, I found this prediction blatantly printed in the 2007 IPCC Report under the section – “Model Based Projections For The Future”.  Here is the quote:

“A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.”

So it would seem that the latest report does indeed contradict the IPCC’s 2007 predictions and cuts temperature increases in half.  Cook apparently does not know how to read.


Here are just some of the latest mainstream quotes on the leaked report:

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals  scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong. The Mail  on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later  this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),  the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are  accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of  climate science. The IPCC recognises the global warming ‘pause’ first  reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that  their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why  world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant  increase since 1997. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 15 September 2013

Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia  Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked Summary for  Policy-makers showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in  a state of flux’. She said  it therefore made no sense that the IPCC  was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has  increased. ‘The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and  amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a  more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which  would  better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy  makers.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 15 September 2013

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described  the leaked report as a ‘staggering concoction of confusion, speculation  and sheer ignorance’.  As for the pause, he said ‘it would appear that  the IPCC is running out of answers … to explain why there is a widening  gap between predictions and reality’. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 15 September 2013

The British Met Office has issued ‘erroneous statements  and  misrepresentations’ about  the pause in global warming  – and its  climate computer model is fundamentally flawed, says  a new analysis by a  leading independent researcher. Nic Lewis, a climate scientist and  accredited ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC, also points out that Met  Office’s flagship climate model suggests the world  will warm by twice  as much in response to CO2 as some other leading institutes, such as  Nasa’s climate centre in America. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 15 September 2013

Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed. It is now more  than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly.  Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the  “pause” already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data  set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis  Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia,  found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20  years. Explaining this failure is now a cottage industry in climate  science. The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that  climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty  assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback. This  will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the  report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than  the actual science of climate change will be at stake. –Matt Ridley, The Wall Street Journal, 14 September 2013

There is a degree of nervousness internationally that the central  climate change message is being lost as efforts are being made to build a  global agreement. The concern is the Abbott government’s change of  heart on a carbon tax will encourage other countries to delay or weaken  their commitment. The election of an Abbott government has focused  attention on Australia. Former prime minister John Howard has been  booked to deliver this year’s Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture  in November. The title of his address: One Religion is Enough. –Graham  Lloyd, The Australian, 14 September 2013

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared  117 climate predictions made in the 1990′s to the actual amount of  warming finds that 99% of them overestimated the amount of warming. On  average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than  actually occurred. –Maxim Lott, Fox News, 12 September 2013

Scientists have had only limited success persuading us to care about  climate change so perhaps it is time to call in the philosophers. That  appears to be the approach of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change, which has engaged a philosopher to help to produce its  forthcoming report on how to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Professor  Broome’s role appears to be to rein in the economists in the IPCC team  and remind them to take ethics into account when considering how much  governments should spend on cutting emissions. He contributed to Lord  Stern’s Review of the Economics of Climate Change, which was criticised  by many economists for justifying spending billions of pounds mitigating  climate change by attaching a much higher value to goods available in  the next century. –Ben Webster, The Times, 11 September 2013

Brandon Smith is the founder of the Alternative Market Project, an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for barter and mutual aid. Join today and learn what it means to step away from the unstable mainstream system and build something better. You can contact Brandon Smith at:

[mailpoet_form id="1"]

About The Author

Brandon Smith is the founder of the Alternative Market Project, an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for barter and mutual aid. Join today and learn what it means to step away from the unstable mainstream system and build something better. You can contact Brandon Smith at: Brandon's articles first appeared at .

Related posts