Once again a paper has been published claiming that the Climate Change computer models do not predict the future very well. The paper claims that the last 18 years represent a 'hiatus' in the actual temperatures around the world, and that this pause is not predicted or replicated in any of the models.
This claim is not shocking -- many observers and scientists have been saying this for years, including some politicians like Ted Cruz.
What is shocking is who is admitting that the computer models are wrong and are predicting roughly 2.5 times the observed warming, and by extension, that the whole theory of man made global climate change is about to be blown into pieces.
The latest paper on this comes from climate scientist Benjamin Santer. Santer is famous for being once of the most vocal and aggressive climate doomsayers, having once threatened to punch noted skeptic Patrick Michaels in the mouth.
So we are now at the point where even the most ardent AGW supporters are admitting that the models do not align with the actual results from the past 18 years. While there have been a number of attempts to 'fix' the data, or claim that 18 years is not a long enough time frame, the stubborn fact remains that the models do not accurately predict current conditions over the past 18 years.
If there is a near-twenty year slowdown in warming that cannot be accounted for by the models, then there is zero chance the models are accurate 80-100 years out.