Assumption vs Reality

I've mentioned many times before that the entire AGW debate swings on the difference between climate models (artificial, man-made ) and "real science" ( based on current data being provided by our latest satellites.

It's now beyond debate that the planet is currently cooling, even in face of increasing CO2 levels, but of course this could be a temporary condition caused by something of which we are not fully aware and we could return to "warming" when the temporary cool spell is over.

But the graph above illustrates the amazing differences between what our satellites are actually telling us and what the UN IPCC models are predicting. ( Remember, the UN IPCC models are predicting doom and gloom only because the modelers are assuming a high degree of what is commonly called "climate sensitivity".) When you pick high sensitivity and plug it into the equations, predictions of rapid temperature rise results. Thus, all of the UN "doom and gloom" predictions are based on the modeler's climate sensitivity assumptions... which are not based on current evidence and scientific fact.

What the current satellite data are really saying is that our climate is remarkably robust and insensitive, and using the "real data" in the models instead of the "educated guesses" of the IPCC, we see a completely different picture.

Here's my personal prediction:

The AGW hysterians are highly likely to begin promoting the idea that both the Aqua CERES and NOAA-15 AMSU channel 5 satellite data.are "flawed" in some way, and in need of "correction" by Dr. Hansen and his merry band of pathological liars at NASA GISS. At least, that's what he been doing of late. If the data is proving AGW is a hoax, change the data so it proves the opposite.

And of course, the general public, being largely mathematically and scientifically illiterate, will buy it hook, line, and sinker, because if "NASA" says it, it must be true, right?