In November 2021, one of the main programmers of the NASA climate model Gavin Schmidt told readers of the Spectator that the track record of models going back to the 1970s, “shows they have skilfully predicted the trends of the past decades”. Now that laughter has finally subsided, we have an expert analysis of NASA’s GISS Model E with its 441,668 lines of pre-historic (circa 1983) FORTRAN code. With water that doesn’t freeze and “negative” cloud cover, it is said that the claim the model is ‘physics-based’ is a term used in the same way that Hollywood producers say a movie is ‘based on a true story’.
The detailed examination has been written by the experienced computer programmer Willis Eschenbach and his paper Climate Models and Climate Muddles has been published by Net Zero Watch (NZW). Andrew Montford of NZW discussed the paper in a recent edition of the Daily Sceptic, noting that climate models are at the centre of the global warming scare and back all the weather alarms promoting the collectivist Net Zero project. But what if the climate models were all junk, he asked. Somewhat alarmingly, Eschenbach’s work shows “this is indeed the case”.
Eschenbach argues that the current crop of computer climate models are far from being fit to be used to decide public policy. To verify this, he says, you only need to look at the endless string of bad, failed, crashed-and-burned predictions they have produced. Pay them no attention, he cautions. “Their main use is to add false legitimacy to the unrealistic fears of the programmers.” If you write a model under the working assumption that carbon dioxide controls the temperature, then guess what you’ll get.
According to Eschenbach, climate models have a hard time replicating the amazing stability of the climate system. They are ‘iterative’ models, meaning the output of one timestep is used as the input for the next. As a result any errors are carried over, making it easy for models to spiral the Earth into fire and snow balls. NASA gets around polar water refusing to freeze and ‘negative’ amounts of cloud forming (what do minus-two clouds look like?) during model runs by replacing bad values with corresponding maximum or minimum values. “Science at its finest,” comments Eschenbach. He notes that he is not picking on just NASA. The same issues, to a greater or lesser extent, exist within all complex iterative models. “I’m simply pointing out that these are not ‘physics-based’ – they are propped up and fenced in to keep them from crashing,” he observes.
This is the graph produced by Professor Nicola Scafetta plotting 38 of the major climate models showing their temperature predictions set against the thick green line of the actual satellite record.

As can be seen, the predictions started to go haywire 25 years ago, just as the global warming fright started to gain political traction. In his Spectator article, Gavin Schmidt, a one- time ‘fact checker’ of the Daily Sceptic, noted that most outcomes depend on the overall trend and not the “fine details of any given model”. In fact the record shown above seems to back up Eschenbach’s view that all a computer model can do is “make visible and glorify the understandings and, more importantly, the misunderstandings of the programmers”.
The case against relying on computer models to back an insane global de-industrialisation campaign grows by the day. The latest nonsense, peddled by the BBC among many media outlets, is that a world’s hottest day temperature record was broken three times last week. As climate journalist Paul Homewood noted, the idea that global temperatures could shoot up by 0.22°C in just three days is physically impossible. The entire propaganda exercise is the product of computer modelling – any reader of Eschenbach’s diligent work might not be surprised to discover.
There is a great deal of excitement in alarmist circles about a new El Niño weather oscillation that is starting to brew and might come to the rescue with a little extra heat. Hence all the recent useful-idiot coverage of ‘boiling oceans’ and record heat days. Any El Niño warming will of course be entirely natural but, cynics might note, it will alleviate the need for surface datasets to make yet more upward retrospective adjustments. The dramatic effect of El Niños can be seen in the latest anomaly data from the accurate satellite temperature record.

The two high points shown in 1998 and 2016 were both very powerful El Niño years that pushed global temperatures up. If one takes the high point of 1998, a case can be made that global warming ran out of steam at this point. It is of course just one year, but it was 25 years ago and temperatures have only twice passed this peak since – in the dramatic El Niño of 2016. A small amount of warming can be discerned since, but hardly enough to justify the worldwide panic caused by manufactured climate models and heavily adjusted surface temperature data.
The widespread use of Armageddon model predictions was highlighted recently by research from Clintel. It showed that 42% of the gloomy forecasts made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were based on climate model scenarios that even the UN body admits are of “low likelihood”. They assume temperature rises of up to 5°C within less than 80 years. Almost nobody now believes the scenarios are remotely plausible. Yet it has been shown that around half the impacts and forecasts across the entire scientific literature are based on them. It is a fair bet that almost 100% of the increasingly hysterical climate headlines found across mainstream media are corrupted by these fantastical notions.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Once you have understood this, you have understood ‘pandemic!’ ‘the world is on fire!’, nut zero, ‘Blair’s Britain’ and everything:
‘Combining data for the past five years, from 2018 through 2022, allows for a more robust analysis of demographic differences in views about marijuana legalization than is possible from a single poll. Using this aggregate, Gallup finds support for legalization averaged 67% among the general population but varied significantly by subgroup. Conservative, religious and older Americans are the least supportive, while liberal, nonreligious and younger Americans are the most supportive.
Specifically, subgroups whose support for legalization exceeds the national average by 10 or more percentage points include those with no religious preference (89%), self-identified liberals (84%), Democrats (81%)’
‘Marijuana Views Linked to Ideology, Religiosity, Age’ Nov. 2022
‘….the concentration of THC in cannabis has increased significantly over time meaning that cannabis used today is typically much stronger than previously.’
‘…people who use high potency cannabis are more likely to experience addiction than those using low potency products. It also suggests that people using high potency cannabis are more likely to experience a psychotic disorder, such as schizophrenia.’
‘High-strength cannabis linked to addiction and mental health problems’ July 2022
Cannabis addiction is a very real phenomenon[*] but this has nothing to do with the perennial chestnut of the new superhigh potency weed. I’ve already read these stories more than 20 years ago. But then, that’s just another instance of participiants of the so-called culture wars on all two sides being equally corrupt and equally willing to use bad fabrications to further thier dubious causes.
[*] If you’re used to consuming Cannabis-products all day, suddenly stopping this will result in a very miserable feeling one will usually desire to end as soon as possible. This lasts for about two weeks and needs a conscious effort to overcome. Before I moved to England, I gave my last piece of hashish as present to someone (much thanked for in the falsely cozy ways of this subculture) because I had grown intellectually tired of this (and of the people associated with it). That wasn’t exactly pleasant for about half a month but I like my non-stoned self better.
You are entitled, of course, to your own opinion.
Others will base theirs on the evidence:
‘This study finds strong evidence of an association between cannabis use disorder (CUD) and schizophrenia among both males and females, and the magnitude of this association appears to be consistently larger among males than females, especially among those aged 16–25. Importantly, 15% of cases of schizophrenia in males may be preventable if CUD was avoided. Although CUD is not responsible for most schizophrenia cases in Denmark, it appears to contribute to a non-negligible and steadily increasing proportion over the past five decades. In young males (21–30 years, possibly up to 40), the proportion may even be as high as 25–30%. There are global increases in legalization of nonmedical use of cannabis, increases in THC content of cannabis and in total THC doses consumed (Caulkins, Pardo, & Kilmer,) increases in the prevalence of cannabis use and CUD, and decrease in public perception of harm from cannabis use (Chiu, Hall, Chan, Hides, & Leung,)
Alongside the increasing evidence that CUD is a modifiable risk factor for schizophrenia, our findings underscore the importance of evidence-based strategies to regulate cannabis use and to effectively prevent, screen for, and treat CUD as well as schizophrenia.’
Association between cannabis use disorder and schizophrenia….May 2023
Addicts don’t like to hear the truth.
You are hereby awarded the medal for the idiot who’d certainly be posting this. It’s truly deserved. I was actually reluctant to publish the comment just because one of your species was going to react in exactly this way to it. But since it’s widely claimed and believed that cannabis is actually not addictive, I thought pointing out that it definitely is was worthwhile.
PS: You’ve also crossed into illegal territory here by making factually wrong statements about me I could easily disprove weren’t you hiding your name.
Your text has absolutely no relation to my comment which was about two things
1) The wrong myth of cannabis not being addictive.
2) The eternal superweed hoax.
As I have mentioned before I have a few mental problems from the Army. After my wife died I fell apart and spent 20 years in both a bottle and smoking industrial quantities of ‘blow’. I am clear of both after finally getting some help, other than the offered prescription ‘zombie’ drugs. NHS Veterans (Wales) were marvellous in helping me understand and work through my problems although it was brutal. I did not start smoking it until I was in my mid forties and I think that this makes a big difference, my brain is fully formed and I was, ostensibly, an adult. I often wonder if the age at which these others started is ever taken into account, or if it is just monstered to fit a position without reference to the still growing brains of the young. Alcohol and other drugs do affect the development of the immature mind, as is well known. Including abuse by a parent while pregnant (Greta Thunberg, allegedly) causing FASD.
You are clearly too lazy to have read the reference, or even the brief quotes from it, thereby undermining your own protestations.
Bon voyage!
It’s bloody well causing me mental health problems having to listen to all their shyte!
Same here, I keep getting the great urge to go and biet da schidt out of something that really deserves it. Which is causing mental conflict with the part that says that this is not rational. Also with all this safety baggage that is toted these days, why has no one been done for causing harm to others by their actions, as indicated within the introduction of the H&S at work act 1974, from which all the ails of today are derived.
In order to maintain most woke ideological religious tenets, you must hold multiple counter factual lies and inconsistencies in your mind. Moreover one must constantly change these ideas once they are proven false without using the change of information as a basis for reevaluating your information sources and your peer group networks.
To continuously lie to yourself requires a lot of emotional energy which the woke cult tries to keep fired up through media dog whistles. However the right wingers are also caught up in these hysterical stories and suffer as a consequence. For them, it’s constantly seeing lies endorsed by the left and ratified by the news and media never seeming to improve and always leading to more disasters. Then the ever present impending fear that it’s all going to hell and there’s nothing we can do about it, including banging away at our cultist lefty friends and family in the vain hope they will “wake up” and have their heads deeply buried in the sand.
Its a war on all our minds, woke or awake.
56% of white, liberal women aged 18–29 had ever been diagnosed with a mental health condition by their doctors
Old joke, but has to be made here: Didn’t you just write that they were woke liberals?
This sort of Left Wing Politics is a mental health problem. Think running around with leaky facemasks to protect oneself against submicroscopic invisible enemies lurking everywhere, believing that a weather beast god will one day kill us all and that some demonic superhuman entity places human souls in wrong bodies solely to torment them.
Doesn’t strike me as particularly sane and balanced.
Holding multiple contradictory opinions at the same time can’t be good for one’s mental health either.
On a related topic I heard that a BBC reporter at a presser for the Women’s football asked a Moroccan player how many lesbians where in the team. Completely ignorant of the fact that not every country is as tolerant of that sort of thing as Britain – and despite the same BBC regularly contributing to the argument that Britain is a sexist, homophobic hell-hole of oppression.
And there was me thinking they were referring to trans women who had not changed their sexual preferences once they had transitioned.
No need for an explanation or question really. Being woke is an identity relationship (as in algebraic identity) with being mentally ill. It requires devotion to an ideology beyond reason and elevation of a victim mentality over healthy self sufficiency. It has taken over from traditional left wing politics. Plus as Jordan Peterson points out, as the latest research shows, it is also accompanied by a big dollop of psychopathy.
I have always thought that supporting left wing politics was a mental condition, particularly of young people. Most tend to grow out of it as they grow up and assume the responsibilities of adult life.
One does not need to look far at all in Clown World for examples of mentally ill people trying to normalize their behaviour. I’m pretty sure adults identifying as babies would qualify. Eat your heart out Damian Hirst;
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1683464633527549952
https://twitter.com/_The_Bayou_Boy/status/1683112626664898560
I think you will find it’s mental health problems causing the left wing politics
Just what I was going to say!
“Could Left-wing politics be causing mental health problems?”
What?!! Perhaps Left-wing politics is the mental illness. Prolonged efforts of a person (or the group) to keep reality outside of their head is not conducive to good mental health.
“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
Thomas Sowell
It is a very small number of people who give a monkey’s about these trendy ideas. I think that even in hotbed USA it was just eight percent. The whole thing is a psy op to convince you that these are the most important issues whilst they fleece you dry.
A small proportion will have genuine mental health problems, for the rest it’s a trend, just another bandwagon to jump on or a label that’s a useful tool for getting out of anything they don’t want to do.
It could also be that this is the mollycoddled generation who have been raised to be perpetually offended and taught that the world is a scary place. These young adults have never known the freedom of spending long summer days out with friends with no parental supervision, sorting out their own differences and entertaining themselves. Instead, their lives have been micromanaged by over anxious parents, they’ve been picked up and dropped off everywhere, run crying to the nearest adult if another child called them a name and won prizes for failing because ‘everyone’s a winner’. Now they’re adults they don’t have a clue how to operate in the real world and peddle all this woke crap to try and make it all a bit less scary with the ‘be kind’ message and such like.
Ofcourse when you believe things that are not true you get yourself into a whole lot trouble. Once you think capitalism is evil when infact it has brought billions out of miserable poverty then right away your world view that does not match what is actually happening in the real world will cause you some anxiety. Once you believe that humanity will be wiped out by a little trace gas that makes you glue yourself to the street then perhaps it is long past the time you saw a shrink. etc etc all the way down the list of absurd Liberal Progressive anti human policies.
You don’t have to be a nutter to espouse left wing ideas, but it certainly helps