One thought on “Are climate change computer models as flawed or inconclusive as the climate change skeptics claim?”

  1. My reply:

    Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics, not climate change skeptics, please. Nature makes climate change, not humans and their CO2 emissions.
    Back to your question. Who says that climate change computer models are flawed? Believe it or not, the head of the snake, the evil globalist Marxist U.N. IPCC.:
    Overheating Climate Models (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/05/02/overheating-climate-models/)
    All of these climate models contain subroutines turning atmospheric CO2 into a second sun in the sky, and since this is totally bogus these models can never be tuned with pretzel logic to accurately predict future climate, sorry. They’re like computer chess algorithms that attempt to reduce a board position to a single Q (quality) number and calculate all future moves by both sides out to some level and pick the position with the highest Q; too bad, a smarter chess player might win by sacrificing a queen, lowering the Q for a few moves until coming in for checkmate, and these pure Q algorithms will probably miss this maneuver.

    Computer Model Delusions And The Climate Scare | PSI Intl (https://principia-scientific.org/computer-model-delusions-and-the-climate-scare/)
    Climate modeling illusions (http://www.cfact.org/2019/01/29/climate-modeling-illusions/)
    New climate models predict a warming surge (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge)
    Understanding Climate Models (https://greenjihad.com/2019/01/28/understanding-climate-models/)
    Better Understanding… Models (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE6iOox6wE)

    The CO2 greenhouse warming theory is a scientific hoax designed to fool physics ignoramuses. See why real physics destroys its credibility forever.

    TLW’s Two Cents Worth on Climate Change (http://www.historyscoper.com/climatetlw.html)

Comments are closed.