I have said for ages that climate models have not been accurate ever. Demetris Koutsoyiannis had previously shown this to be the case and goes into even more detail about how bad the models are in his new paper, which is well worth a read.
The summary of his paper is:
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.Given the paucity of data supporting the proposition that CO2 is the main driver of climate change and the models' complete inability to forecast accurately one would think that the issue would fade from public view.
Au contraire, mon ami.
There is one little problem with that conclusion.
Politics trumps science.
In the 1930s Stalin allowed the implementation of Trofim Lysenko's disastrous agricultural policies. In James Hansen the 21st century has its own Lysenko.
It should come as no surprise that politicians use science for their own ends and, in the event that the science is falsified or doesn't support the (typically) imposition of new taxes on the public at large, they simply do the three monkeys thing and ignore the inconvenience.
That's why we're in so much danger here in Australia. Both the Labor government and pissweak Coalition opposition favour the introduction of an emissions trading scheme.
For gawdsake - it snowed in Sydney the other day; the coldest Sydney day for over 40 years. Can't these politicians stick their head out the window for a brief moment to discover the truth. Are their minds so closed to scientific reality?
The Australian population is yet to understand that the emissions trading scheme is simply another tax on them. Governments around the world are using business as a proxy for the collection of more tax dollars. Any cost increase to inputs to business simply get passed straight on to the consumer.
There is no difference to the average taxpayer between introducing an emissions trading scheme and increasing the GST from 10% to around 15% in the short term and 30%-40% in order to hit the targets outlined in the Garnaut Report.
By introducing the emissions trading scheme the government is telling Australian Working Families that it is prefers to support China's and India's economic growth and standard of living over our own.
Western apologists are putting the argument that India and China need the chance to 'catch up' in terms of economic development and that, after all, it was the West that created the problem. This is certainly the position being taken by those countries and other developing nations such as Brazil.
The problem with that logic is that these countries had the same opportunity to grow their economies since 1950 but chose instead to implement the Marxist economic policies that impoverished all but the fortunate few at the top.
India and China invested no money at all into the development of the technologies that they are now able to take advantage of with their new found wealth. The West paid the carbon price for that.
Why not charge them a 'catch up' amount that would be in the same order as, say, a carbon emissions scheme?
Perhaps Australia's Mandarin speaking Prime Mandarin doesn't want to get offside those people for whom he obviously has more regard than he does for Australian Working Families.
As I said, if it wasn't so serious then it'd be funny.