Climate change computer models totally “wrong” … new science finds models wildly over-projecting rises in global temperature

Belief in the concept of catastrophic man-made global warming is now virtually demanded of everyone who wants to be taken seriously and perceived to be a thinking, educated person. Scientists, the mainstream media and public figures like Al Gore have been ramming the concept down our throats for years now, but independent media leaders like Mike Adams, the founder and editor of Natural News, have steadfastly insisted that the data has been manipulated to make the situation appear more dire than it is and to take control of global industry.

Well, after all the jeering from the sidelines, they’ve been proved right; a landmark paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience has finally admitted that the alarmists had it wrong all along.

The Telegraph recently reported:

Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output. [Emphasis added]

Notice how the article just skips right over the fact that the modeling has been wrong, and uses it as an opportunity to reinforce the concept that countries need to “get a grip on their carbon output.”

The Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump famously recently bowed out of, is all about keeping global temperatures within 1.5° of where they were before the “evil” manufacturing industry starting spewing carbon dioxide into the air with the birth of the industrial revolution.

Reaching this goal has largely been touted as a virtually impossible feat, only to be accomplished if the whole world pulls together and emissions can be reduced to zero.

Each year, for at least the past decade, headlines have screamed, “Hottest year on record!” making it seem that temperatures are increasing by multiple degrees every year.

Well, that just flat-out isn’t true. (Related: Find out what’s really going on with climate change at ClimateScienceNews.com)

The latest report – which was compiled by scientists who are absolute believers in the global warming theory, and are actually directly involved in determining the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carbon budget – clearly indicates that temperatures have only risen by between 0.9° and 1.0° since the start of the Industrial Revolution in England.

So, not only has the temperature not been climbing by a couple of degrees every year for the past decade, but it’s only increased by a degree or less since industries supposedly began changing the climate forever.

While The Telegraph deceptively refers to this time as the “mid-19th-Century,” they actually need to go back a few years.

The History channel notes:

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain in the late 1700s, manufacturing was often done in people’s homes, using hand tools or basic machines. Industrialization marked a shift to powered, special-purpose machinery, factories and mass production. [Emphasis added]

So, the global temperature has increased by 1° in the last 220 years or so – and that’s if you believe that the scientists have now got the modeling right.  (Related: Climate change science implodes as IPCC climate models found to be “totally wrong” … temperatures aren’t rising as predicted … hoax unraveling.)

For those who have been bravely swimming upstream for years and trying to let people know that the whole global warming theory is based on shaky – and possibly fraudulent – science, none of this comes as a surprise.

For those who have faithfully believed everything the media, politicians and others with a vested interest in pushing the global warming theory have told them, this will no doubt come as a shock.

It just reinforces once more that only the independent media can be relied upon to report unbiased scientific fact.

Sources include:

Telegraph.co.uk

Nature.com

Breitbart.com