73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 Years

Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH).

Christy’s findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nation’s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR).

Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf)

“I compared the models with observations in the key area – the tropics – where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy explained. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.” (See Tropical Mid-Troposphere Graph.pdf)

Using datasets of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, Christy found that “all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.”

“All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world,” Christy pointed out. “The closest was a Russian model that predicted a one-degree increase.”

Read full article: 73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 Years

  • Robert Chappell

    Climate change is a constant. Climate science is a pseudo science, as there are too many variables to be able to conclude anything definitively. The idea of global warming as anthropogenic (caused by man) is a political one, espoused by those who wish to coerce and control others, as well as those who are simply alarmed due to the media. Pro warming scientists have cherry picked data, undermined peer review, and denied freedom of information requests. The IPCC is highly politicized, in my opinion.
    The EPA has labeled carbon dioxide a pollutant, which it is not. Why don’t we simply agree that man does have some impact on the environment, which we should endeavor to mitigate without the need for draconian measures?

    • J D

      Well said…well said I say.

    • Ray

      Well-said INDEED!

      • unoclay1

        You guys are hilarious. Keep pretending you’re smarter than 99.9% of climate scientists– ie. actual experts who study and research this issue for a living. Sure, makes sense–your skepticism, as non-experts, is sensible.


        • Ray

          Percentages mean nothing to me, nor should they to you, unless you too understand the technicalities of it yourself you’re simply putting your trust in the majority (if it truly is a majority as you say). The established “science” at any point in history has been full of erroneous beliefs, our era is not an exception. My point should be obvious: I hope you’re not equating the number of those who believe in a certain theory to proof of the theory’s validity.

          Science is undoubtedly manipulated for political purposes, this is not a debate. I don’t know, this is my opinion based on a good deal of reading, but I can imagine this being a convenient ploy for selling an ideology which would otherwise be onerous to the vast majority of people, that is, an ideology that seeks to justify total control over people’s lives. How much more control can you get than being able to regulate the environment and people’s interactions with it?

          I’m not pretending to be smarter in any way whatsoever. However, you’re assertion that – because I don’t technically understand a specific topic – I must therefore not have a valid opinion if it goes against what you say is the vast majority’s opinion. This whole notion is of course nonsense. Add on top of that you’re cute little picture, as if you assume we don’t care, get off your high horse and start showing me why you’re motivated to be so pretentious.

          • unoclay1

            ” I must therefore not have a valid opinion if it goes against . . . . the vast majority’s opinion.”

            That’s usually how science works. Opinions are not valid means to reject overwhelming consensus. You’re cherry picking to support your ‘skepticism’, and tying it to your paranoid “libertarian” worldview.

            Jenny McCarthy says vaccines cause autism, but anyone with the tiniest iota of scientific understanding knows her claim is nonsense. But i suppose she’s entitled to her opinion–right?

            Meanwhile, preventable diseases spread and kill people, but sure, her opinion (though she’s no expert) is valid.

            Science > climate science deniers

          • Ray

            “paranoid “libertarian” worldview”

            How so?

            “That’s usually how science works. Opinions are not valid means to reject overwhelming consensus.”

            What is this “science”, this “overwhelming consensus”, exactly? You keep appealing to so-called authority and majority, so let’s get some sources if you don’t mind.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            “consensus” means nothing.

            Here’s a list of previous “consensus” that were scientifically valid… until they weren’t.


            There is no doubt that “the climate changes,” but suggesting man is primarily responsible for this is absurd. Further, EVEN IF man is entirely responsible for climate change, there is no reason to believe higher levels of CO2 will result in catastrophic damage. Plant life thrives in high CO2 conditions. CO2 has been rising at an enormous rate over the past several decades, with little noticeable change in climate.

        • Sun Wu Kong

          Trolololol, there is no 99.9% concensus, not even a 97% concensus, troll.


  • Neil Wilkes

    Agree completely, Robert.

  • unoclay1

    So, let me get this straight, you guys are going to believe one study by one institution over the virtually unanimous research and studies of the scientific community, worldwide?

    gerund or present participle: cherry-picking
    1. selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available.

    • Ray

      All I hear is the propaganda machine vomiting out the “facts” and “data” and “evidence” over and over in a barrage of meaninglessness…is that what you mean by “unanimous research”?

      Personally, I have heard all sorts of stuff from all over the spectrum of so-called scientists. It’s very difficult to know what to believe in many cases, please stop berating people for being cautious. It’s the alarmist approach that truly sends up the red flags for me, as it does many others that I know personally. Robert’s point I think is very valid, let’s not be draconian in our pursuit of taking care of the earth…there are far better ways to approach this whole ordeal. I don’t see anything wrong with that.