Global Warming Model a Mistake, Scientists Gambled Away the Public’s Trust

The End Result Is Foolishness

Climate Change Model A Mistake, Scientists Gambled Away The Public's Trust

With everything else going on in the US, climate change hasn’t been high on the political agenda. However Obama is personally going to change that this Tuesday. The White House has confirmed that the President will explain his plan in detail on how to reduce carbon emissions, and prepare for global warming.  This afternoon Obama himself tweeted:

We’ll need all of us, as citizens, to do our part to preserve God’s creation for future generations — our forests and waterways, our croplands and snow-capped peaks,”Obama said: “There’s no single step that can reverse the effects of climate change. But when it comes to the world we leave our children, we owe it to them to do what we can.

However according to Hans von Storch a meteorologist the Climate Change model might have been a mistake. Therefore scientists have gambled away the public’s trust.

During an interview with a German news publication, von Stroch said that, scientists are bewildered by the 15-year standstill in global warming if this inclination continues their models could be “fundamentally wrong.” He said : “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models, a 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

He explained that: “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us,” according to Storch. “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed.”

If Obama will take these observations of the models being a mistake, and the scientists gambling away the public’s trust, in consideration during his speech on Tuesday, is unclear at this moment. He has been talking about this topic numeral times now. For example; during a recent inaugural address, and he wants to add a call to action during his upcoming Georgetown appearance. But first things first.

He said: “This Tuesday, I’ll lay out my vision for where I believe we need to go — a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it.”

According to Obama climate change is something we all should be concerned with. (Apart from the wire taps, possible terrorist threats, and killer Asteroids, this topic is one we should take serious as well.

According to Obama lots of changes should be made. We should fight as a nation to make it a better world for our children. The situation can’t be reversed but it can improve, the scientist might have gambled away the public’s trust, but has Obama done so as well?

“It’s not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them,” Storch stated. “The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public’s trust.  Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth,” explained Storch.

“The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency under the title ‘Sie erwärmt sich doch’ (‘The Earth is getting warmer’). Pamphlets like that aren’t going to convince any skeptics.”

What do you think? Do you agree with von Storch, that the climate change model is a mistake, and that scientists have gambled away the public’s, our, trust? Or do you think there is still some truth to it?

Lets wait and see what Obama has to add to this on Tuesday.

By Georgina Pijttersen

source ABCnews

51 Responses to "Global Warming Model a Mistake, Scientists Gambled Away the Public’s Trust"

  1. thomas vesely   July 14, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    SQUAT ! citizen
    COUGH ! citizen
    this is an anal probe, looking for climate change.

  2. hearle   June 23, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    Obama better get it right because if he bases his policy on faulty scientific models then it will come back to bite him in the future as it is destroying the reputation of the alarmist climate scientists now. One would have thought that if he took note of the evidence from his own satellite data he would spend our money on real climate science before he wastes further billions funding that icon of bureaucratic idiocy and corruption the UN IPCC.

    • Roger Bird   June 23, 2013 at 1:53 pm

      Don’t expect independent thinking from a politician.

  3. Kevin   June 23, 2013 at 11:14 am

    Keep in mind that this is coming from the same publication that devoted an entire article to promoting the quackery of “sun gazing.”

  4. Roger Bird   June 23, 2013 at 10:27 am

    How can you say that AGW is false, other than the fact that it is? How can you say that when you could lose your job and not get published as a scientist? You must not love your family to say such a thing, really. How could you be so cruel? And how can you be so stubborn to insist upon looking at the data with independent thinking, really!!!

  5. ML/NJ   June 23, 2013 at 6:34 am

    “Global Warming” was never about science. It was about raising taxes. We’re just lucky the predicted calamity wasn’t global cooling, and one or the other was certain to be observable to some extent within a few years of the “warnings” of the enlightened.

  6. jjv   June 23, 2013 at 6:18 am

    Man made climate change has been a hoax from the start. The really idiotic claim of 97% consensus is merely due to the hoaxists using only data which agrees with their original prognostications regarding GW.

    We have all seen the East Anglia group emais inwhich a deliberate attempt was made to ignore any data from scientists not fully supporti n g the alarmist views of catastrohic GW.

    This garbage is nothing more then a grab for tax payer dollars.

    • Thompson_TX   June 23, 2013 at 6:31 am

      Thank goodness your view and those like you are a minority (vocal) and don’t represent the majority. Your choice would be to follow the Republicans right over the cliff like a good Lemming.

  7. Leftist Tax Scam   June 23, 2013 at 5:40 am

    Man made climate change is a hoax that has been bilking money from Western civilization for decades now. Remember, in the 1970s, it was “:THE COMING ICE AGE!”

    Ooooohhhhh. Scary.

    This garbage is only for the sheeple. 97% consensus, Hahahahahahaha! Prove that, you dolts. There is no such thing. There is 97% coverage of one side of this “debate” by a complicit media. The stupids will believe anything they are told, even if it costs them trillions of dollars and a way of life.

  8. Steve Lafreniere   June 23, 2013 at 5:06 am

    Who wrote this? Please tell it wasn’t a journalist. Terrible use of English, grammar, and punctuation.

  9. thomas vesely   June 23, 2013 at 3:45 am

    the scientists who did question global warming were defunded, sacked.
    ever since then it has been devoid of honesty.

  10. Lauj Hawj   June 23, 2013 at 3:14 am

    If Obama will take these observations of the models being a mistake, and the scientists gambling away the public’s trust, in consideration during his speech on Tuesday, is unclear at this moment. He has been talking about this topic numeral times now. For example; during a recent inaugural address, and he wants to add a call to action during his upcoming Georgetown appearance. But first things first.


    What was the author saying above here?

  11. Roger Bird   June 23, 2013 at 2:57 am

    1) The 97% is a Big, Fat lie.
    2) Since when are facts irresponsible?
    3) Consensus science is not science.

  12. Charlie Podvin   June 23, 2013 at 2:49 am

    Charlie: The flat line temperature is a measure of global sea surface temperature. Land temperature has continued to rise.

  13. Thompson_TX   June 23, 2013 at 2:48 am

    How is it possible that we have a 97 percent agreement on global warming and you continue to post climate hoax propaganda? It seems pretty irresponsible.

    97 percent of scientific studies agree on man-made global warming, so what now?
    By Jason Samenow, Published: May 17, 2013 at 4:35 pm E-mail the writer at Washington Post.

    Total number of study abstracts examined by study authors categorized into endorsement of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, rejection and no position. (Environmental Research Letters)

    (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I’ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man-made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).)

    Original post, with clarification: A new study confirms there is strong scientific consensus that human activities are causing the planet to warm. 97 percent of scientific papers (that take a stance on the issue) agree, the study finds.

    This finding serves as a nice talking point for cocktail party conversations, but it’s less clear it will have a meaningful effect on public’s level of concern about climate change.
    The authors* of the study (Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature), who painstakingly sifted through nearly 12,000 academic journal article to reach their conclusion, say they hope their results bridge the divide between publishing scientists who are convinced human activities are causing global warming and the segment of the public, who are not. This, they say, will motivate action on climate change.

  14. Victor Webster   June 23, 2013 at 2:13 am

    Georgina Pijttersen, you are a fool.

  15. Allen Eltor   June 23, 2013 at 1:38 am

    Half these hicks don’t even know who the people are whose religion they belong to, but here’s the situation.

    In their religion’s leaders’ own words.


    5 July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant…,” Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails.

    7 May, 2009
    “No upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,” Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails.

    15 Aug 2009
    “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…,” Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters.

    19 November 2009
    “At present, however, the warming is taking a break.[…] There can be no argument about that,” Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel.

    19 November 2009
    “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community. [….] We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point,” Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel.

    13 February 2010
    Phil Jones: “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all.”
    BBC: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
    Phil Jones: “Yes, but only just.”

    “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero…,” Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research.

    2 June 2011
    “…it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…,” Dr Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS.

    18 September 2011
    “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)…,” Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change.

    14 October 2012
    “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.” Source:, Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) –

    30 March 2013
    “…the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade,” Dr. James Hansen – The Economist.

    7 April 2013
    “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…,” Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change.

    22 February 2013
    “People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning,” Dr. Rajendra Pachauri – The Australian.

    27 May 2013
    “I note this last decade or so has been fairly flat,” Lord Stern (economist) – Telegraph.

    Many are using the word “pause” or “break” to describe the recent trend because they refuse to believe their theory is failing before their eyes. But this is only the language of denial.

    Even the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) admitted that the warming has stopped and are puzzled by it: “In the years leading up to the year 2000, the temperature curve rose very sharply. But since then it isn’t rising so, in fact it’s not rising at all, the curve. The average temperature has stagnated at a very high level – we sort of have a plateau, and that during a time when CO2 emissions have risen considerably.” (2013)

    • Roger Bird   June 23, 2013 at 2:02 am

      Allen, you realize that by quoting their own authority figures you are being a meanie head, a denialist, a shill of the oil companies, and whatever other nonsense they call us.

      NICE POST.

  16. Michael   June 23, 2013 at 1:12 am

    Clearly the person responsible for this “article” is neither a journalist nor a linguist.

  17. Dan   June 23, 2013 at 1:12 am

    Who is Georgina Pijttersen? Does this person have any credibility at all as a science writer? I’m guessing since there’s no bio, she doesn’t and is a Rupert Murdoch hack.

  18. Licho   June 23, 2013 at 1:02 am

    There is no global warming pause past 15 years

  19. castthefirststone   June 23, 2013 at 12:34 am

    it seems. . . .the president and the entire staff should quit / be fired for being idiot(s) !

  20. Hadi Yamin   June 23, 2013 at 12:15 am

    A metereologist is a respected and skilled proferssional, but he or she is not a global warming expert and should not have been used as source in the article.

    • castthefirststone   June 23, 2013 at 12:37 am

      what in hell is a “global warming expert” ?

      • DaBilk   June 24, 2013 at 3:29 pm

        A parasite who sucks money out of a system to promote their religion?

        Actually, I like the definition of expert as being, “x- and unknown quantity, and spurt- a drip under pressure.”

  21. jon   June 23, 2013 at 12:10 am

    Excuse me but you have written and published an entire article that quotes only one man. That would be fine if that man were say the president or Albert Einstein. But you are quoting a single meteorologist. Which type is he? Is he just a highly trained weatherman or does he take study the actual composition of the atmosphere? Do other professionals agree with his claim that temperature has been stagnant for 15 years? If so, who are they and how many of them are there? Do other scientist disagree with it? If you like, I can interview my next door neighbor. He’s an economist. I’ll write a whole article about his claims and concerns as they are, without any sort of verification or counter-point. And you can publish it free of charge.

  22. Itcloud Smith   June 23, 2013 at 12:02 am

    The Guardian Express is owned by Rupert Murdoch, Fox news owner, etc.According to the 2011 list of Forbes richest Americans, Murdoch is the 38th richest person in the US and the 106th-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $8.3 billion.[1]
    Murdoch has been listed three times in the Time 100 as among the most influential people in the world. In May 2012, Forbes ranked him as the 24th most powerful person in the world.[134]
    In connection with Murdoch’s testimony to the Leveson Inquiry “into the ethics of the British press”, editor of Newsweek International, Tunku Varadarajan, referred to him as “the man whose name is synonymous with unethical newspapers”

  23. Andy   June 22, 2013 at 11:59 pm

    This is terrible reporting with an obvious political slant. I just read the source interview from Spiegel: ( Storch is pretty clear “We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it.” It is our ability to forecast global warming that Storch is calling a mistake NOT global warming itself.

  24. Roger Bird   June 22, 2013 at 11:58 pm

    Obama is the very essence of a dependent thinker. He still doesn’t know that it is all moot. Cold fusion or LENR and Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat have been proven to be real. It is getting closer to becoming a commercial product. Check out these websites:

    Check out what this Nobel Prize winner has to say about LENR.

    Elforsk (Swedish for “Electricity Research”) happily admits on their site that they paid for the tests and are happy with the results.

    And this site gives an excellent round up:

  25. Roxie   June 22, 2013 at 11:53 pm

    Chemtrails in the future to hide ET activity.

  26. Michael   June 22, 2013 at 11:46 pm

    Seems to me the author is more hell bent on attacking the president than doing research and fact finding. You should quit/be fired for being an idiot.

    • marv   June 23, 2013 at 9:20 am

      Other than me being an idiot ,foolish, and have obviously have lived too long. Is there any other reason to think that Climate change will change by anything we do? Agenda 21 is his solution and all in all it’s just part of socialism. It’s not that it is inherently bad …it’s just not needed yet. In this political situation. It will help stabilise the dollar though.

  27. Susan Egon   June 22, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    All of this bs…none of it concerns itself with the MOST fundamental reason for supposed “climate change” some or all of its forms – the Geoengineering of our planet since at least 1997. Obama will announce his plans for the inception of Chemtrailing (in cooperation with numerous other world governments), in order to keep all the earth and all living things “safe” from the monster of climate change. These people have perpetrated the greatest crime against our planet and ALL living things…and have not once announced it, asked our permission to spray us like bugs (who don’t deserve it either), nor care in any way about the long term dessimation of our trees, plants, ability to grow food (enter Monsanto), our health and our children’s health, the oceans, our drinking water…just about everything. It is not climate change that must be handled…Geoengineering must be STOPPED! 8/25/13 – Global marches against this horror.

    • marv   June 23, 2013 at 12:01 am

      Behold!!! The arrogance of man will be his downfall!

  28. bill   June 22, 2013 at 11:40 pm

    Yes, there may be grammatical issues with this nonsensical piece, but grammar is the least of Georgina’s problems. Flawed logic and denial of a preponderance of scientific evidence are much bigger problems. I’m glad two-bit pseudo-journalists are not making important policy decisions.

  29. marv   June 22, 2013 at 11:35 pm

    Did you know the other planets are changing as well? It has a bit more to do with the sun and it magnetic field changing more than anything else. Here on good ol earth there has been just as many cold extremes set as heat extremes and precipitation is through the roof in amount fallen, both snow and rain. The ecosystem of earth is swinging wildly to attempt to compensate the added heat in the crust. You did know that antarctica’s ice is melting from the bottom and not the top. Whatever Obama has in plan for us is going to be what Obama wants and not what the earth needs of that you can be sure.

  30. David   June 22, 2013 at 11:22 pm

    weather man versus ph.d.s. I’ll stick with the ph.d.s

  31. Mark Calladus   June 22, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    Too bad the author didn’t do a 30 second Google search before making her erroneous statement that “scientists are bewildered by the 15-year standstill”. Climate scientists are not not “bewildered”, but perhaps those weathermen – ahem – I mean, “meteorologists” are bewildered.

    The science shows that as air temperature plateaus, the oceans continue to heat up. Pretty easy to understand these heat sinks.

    Of course, the Earth has been MUCH warmer in the past, when the oceans were 30 meters higher. But that won’t bother us humans any, will it?

  32. tony stephens   June 22, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    von Storch is a meteorologist. Early on, a majority of them were opposed to the climate scientist position, though most have come on side with the scientists now. We would be foolish to choose the old meteorologist line and disregard the world’s scientists.

    • DaBilk   June 24, 2013 at 3:37 pm

      Lets see…. Prof. Hans von Storch, head of “System Analysis and Modelling”…sounds like your “meteorologist” call is failing as fast as a CAGW model. Probably knows a lot more about climate change than the regular clowns.

  33. Not Impressed   June 22, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    This article is riddled with mistakes, draws on the opinion of one meteorologist to make a broad conclusion about global warming, and attacks Obama on a number of completely unrelated issues. Keep it up! Your career in journalism will be over before I can read another of your pieces.

  34. Miniumette   June 22, 2013 at 11:16 pm

    ‘God’s creation’ ? Dear dear… we are in trouble aren’t we…

  35. flakca   June 22, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    Shooting an asteroid, that isn’t heading for the earth, without being able to accurately predict how large the pieces will be, and where they will head would be considered foolish, as our actions could potentially endanger us. Not to mention the waste of money for the project itself.
    I would like to see a serious article about global warming, that includes a list of those who stand to make or loose money by implementing the proposed solutions. Then we might have an accurate picture of why these solutions are being proposed.

  36. Jim   June 22, 2013 at 11:09 pm

    Speaking of “basic grammar”, Charlene, has any of your grammar teachers EVER informed you that “it’s” ALWAYS means “it is”, and is NEVER to be a reference to something which belongs to “it”??????

  37. Alex Laverick   June 22, 2013 at 11:07 pm

    If you crap in your nest long enough it will stink.
    this report flies in the face of the evidence. the evidence is the changes have been underestimated due to the effects of the methane cycle which will cause greater harm than Co2 .
    Wake up all you idiots who don’t think this is happening
    The big surprise is how quickly it will happen.

  38. Shawnesty   June 22, 2013 at 11:04 pm

    Politicians and scientists need to listen to this kraut–stop gambling away public trust!

  39. John Cross   June 22, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    Even if climate change models are not accurate, the point missing is that we are polluting the planet, pollution and rubbish on land and in the oceans has a far more devastating effect on the environment and animal species than CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Concentrating on the science behind global warming has had a bad effect on the psychy of the average person, we should have been saying and educating that pollution is easy to clean up and stop, and will have a greater effect on CO2 emissions than scientific and political garble.

  40. Harry Densmore   June 22, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    30 years ago the earth was heading towards a new ice age. 20 years ago, eggs were considered a source of high cholestorol. Its all based on unproven science. Stop the nonsense.

    • fred   June 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm

      Hogwash and recycled myths from the entrenched denier camps. What a surprise. Not. Perhaps 10% of scientists may have sided with a new ice age back then. The other 90% thought the Earth would warm as a result of additional greenhouse gases. Today 90% and higher think GW is an established fact based on even more data and evidence then we had way back then. If there’s any nonsense it’s from those who close their eyes and ears to the changing climate and the evidence of a warming world around them.

  41. Charlene   June 22, 2013 at 10:53 pm

    Its. Dang autocorrect.

  42. Charlene   June 22, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    Did an editor check this for basic grammar? It’s so full of goofs I distrust it’s essential premise.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.