&#8220;All [our] models are wrong&#8221;
<p>It&#8217;s Climategate II, with another email dump from the CRU team, and Phil Jones writing that &#8220;All [our] models are wrong&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3954"></span></p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t read the new dump yet.  But the quotes journalists have been pulling out are enough to tell me there are no surprises here.</p>
<p>Well, that is, no surprises if you&#8217;ve read my previous posts about <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1642">error cascades</a> and the <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1631">sociology of AGW alarmism</a>.</p>
<p>What we&#8217;re seeing in these emails is exactly the phenomenon I described; the &#8220;team&#8221; launched an error cascade that is now hooked into green-shirt political agendas.  Peter Thorne: &#8220;The science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run&#8221;.</p>
<p>Thorne also confirmed what I&#8217;ve written about several times on this blog: &#8220;Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.&#8221;</p>
<p>That is, the CRU team itself understands that empirical confirmation for greenhouse warming is lacking.  The atmosphere is not doing what the AGW models predict.  &#8220;Basic problem is that all models are wrong&#8221;, writes Phil Jones, bluntly, &#8220;not got enough middle and low level clouds.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a fitting epitaph for anthropogenic global warming.</p>
