What the 2000 climate report got wrong

Plenty, including the key, basic prediction. Watch the critique here.

In the year 2000, the U.S. government's Global Change Research Program produced the first in a series of National Climate Assessments that made a number of projections based on computer models it insisted were ready for prime time. But as Dr. John Robson explains in this Climate Discussion Nexus "Crystal Ball" video, including an interview with Dr. Pat Michaels, the models were already known to be worse than random when they examined past temperatures and their predictions, predictably, were worse than a con toss. Which didn't stand in the way of their bureaucratic empire-building.

What was the temperature change they projected, 2000 to 2020? 0.6 to 1.0 degrees. What actually happened? 0.2 degrees per decade, or 0.4 degrees, nothing near what they projected.

Did they reject the hypothesis, or the model. Neither. They just kept on predicting. Zero accountability.

Want more evidence that this is not an accelerating rate? Look back to 1980. Model failed.

Michael Mann got a lot of attention, a lot of federal funding and a lot of federal funding. What he did not get was a lot of factual predictions correct.

“According to a new UN report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad, when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.” Jay Leno