Can We Trust the U.N.'s IPCC Climate Models?

Many simulations produce four times more warming than actually occurred over the past 15 years.

On Monday, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the final draft of Climate Change 2013: The Physical Sciences Basis. The report's Summary for Policymakers flatly states: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased." Pretty much everyone concerned with this issue agrees that those are the facts. But what is causing the planet to warm up? Here is where it gets interesting.

The Summary for Policymakers declares it "extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." Whether that is so can be probed by comparing actual observed temperature trends with the simulations of the U.N.'s computer climate models, which assume that human influences are driving climate change. According to the IPCC researchers, "There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global and annual mean surface temperature changes over the historical period, including the warming in the second half of the 20th century." So far, so good: Both the model's projections and actual temperatures did rise during the latter half of the 20th century.

As evidence that the models "reproduce the general features" of actual temperature trends, the new report provides a handy graph comparing projections made in the panel's previous report with three different temperature records. The report further states that "the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

But is that so? Most temperature records show that since 1998 the models and the observed average global temperature trend have parted ways. The temperatures in the models continue to rise, while the real climate has refused to warm up much during the past 15 years.

The IPCC report acknowledges that almost all of the "historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus." Not to worry, it assures us; 15-year pauses just happen, and you can't really expect the models to simulate these kind of random natural fluctuations in the climate. Once this little slow-down passes, "It is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing." In other words, when the warm-up resumes it will soar.

John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has come to a different conclusion. Christy compared the outputs of 73 climate models for the tropical troposphere used by the IPCC in its latest report with satellite and weather balloon temperature trends since 1979 until 2030. "The tropics is so important because that is where models show the clearest and most distinct signal of greenhouse warming—so that is where the comparison should be made (rather than say for temperatures in North Dakota)," Christy explains in an email. "Plus, the key cloud and water vapor feedback processes occur in the tropics." When it comes to simulating the atmospheric temperature trends of the past 35 years, Christy found, all of the IPCC models are running hotter than the actual climate.

Even the IPCC report admits, "Most, though not all, of [the climate models] overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2012." Another graph from Christy, which simply compares the actual average temperature trends with the IPCC model averages for the tropics, makes the divergence starker.

To defend himself against any accusations of cherry-picking his data, Christy notes that his "comparisons start in 1979, so these are 35-year time series comparisons"—rather longer than the 15-year periods whose importance the IPCC disputes.

Why the discrepancy between the IPCC and Christy results? As Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry notes, data don't speak for themselves; researchers have to put them into a context. And your choice of context—say, the year you choose to begin with—can influence your conclusions considerably. While there may be nothing technically wrong with the way the IPCC chose to display the comparison between model data and observation data, "Curry observes, it will mislead the public to infer that climate models are better than we thought." She adds, "What is wrong is the failure of the IPCC to note the failure of nearly all climate model simulations to reproduce a pause of 15+ years."

The IPCC report does concede that "Almost all [climate model] historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus." It argues that the difference "could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error." That is to say, the projections are off owing to pesky natural climate fluctuations, possible errors regarding how much warming a given increase in greenhouse gases will produce, and/or boosting temperature projections too high in response to given increases in greenhouse gases.

The IPCC report also obliquely references an August study in Nature Climate Change that reported that the observed rate of warming over the past 20 years was actually half of what a representative sample of the models relied upon by the IPCC simulated. Looking at just the past 15 years, the models were four times hotter than the actual trend in the average global temperature.

But the IPCC is confident that warming will soon resume at a pretty fast clip too. Back in 2007, other modelers were similarly confident about their predictions for future warming. Specifically, at the United Nation's annual climate change conference in Bali, the U.K.'s Hadley Centre forecasted that between 2004 and 2014 the global average temperature would rise by around +0.3 degrees Celsius. Instead, the Nature Climate Change article reports a trend over the last 15 years of just +0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    No, Ronald, they cannot be trusted.

  • Russell||

    Any more than a climatologist who got the sign wrong in reading warming rather than cooling into three decades of satellite temperature data.

    Oops, that'd be Rons chief scientific witness.

    Ron's side in this case seems to believe they can rest easy if they circle your wagons close enough, because they can't see most of the Indians, when the truth of the matter is that they don't have enough cowboys to fill a teepee.

  • Sevo||

    So, Russell, what part of 'no significant increase' is confusing you?

  • Ron Bailey||

    R: Why do you think Christy is wrong?

  • Russell||

    Christy :

    ""The tropics is so important because that is where models show the clearest and most distinct signal of greenhouse warming—so that is where the comparison should be made (rather than say for temperatures in North Dakota)," Christy explains in an email. "Plus, the key cloud and water vapor feedback processes occur in the tropics." When it comes to simulating the atmospheric temperature trends of the past 35 years, Christy found, all of the IPCC models are running hotter than the actual climate."

    The reality is that the largest impacts and feedbacks , including surface albedo loss,are polar, while equatorial processes are the farthest from equilibrium because of the globally asymmetrical distribution of land with latitude and the collisional flow at the intertropical convergence- the region with the greatest convection rate is , unsurprisingly, the hardest to model..

    These guys have essentially gone from getting the sign wrong to pointing out elements of the contemporary data set that mitigate how wrong they were to begin with

    This apologetic cherry picking is no better than that indulged in by those who want to justify political intervention by arguing for high values of climate sensitivity.

    Need I remind Ron that we are still waiting for the earth shaking and rigorously peer reviewed explanation of their alternative take on thermodynamic cause and effect in equitorial preciptiation that he promised six yeats ago,

  • Russell||

    By 'he' I of course mean Spencer.

  • BigT||

    Agree that the record Antarctic ice extent and dramatic increase in arctic extent are more convincing. Solar effects go beyond TSI, as shown at CERN, and by recent excellent fits of T to sunspot activity. CO2 is a red herring.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Gee, Russ, how about those bastards at RSS? They show the same data as Christy. And Christy is hardly the only one pointing out the failure of the models. But then again this is just another case of ad hominem and failing to argue the facts.

    Speaking of which, I'm sure you've taken Mikey Mann to task for the statistical flaws in Mann et. all (98). You know the supposed hockey stick which failed to apply proper statistical controls and techniques? Or the grafting of two different measurement techniques together on the same graph to "hide the decline?" Yeah, didn't think so.

  • tarran||

    IPCC: Fixing the Facts - Steve McIntyre

    For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this.
    None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.
  • Sevo||

    "At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this."

    Justify? Who needs to do so?
    Just keep feeding doomsday pronouncements to the press. It's worked for Ehrlich for 40 years.

  • JWatts||

    Well and be sure to call your opponents deniers and skeptics.

  • BigT||

    Famous 'skeptic' Michael Shermer is a true believer.

    http://www.michaelshermer.com/.....t-beliefs/

    Perhaps the biggest hypocrite in planet Earth.

  • Benjamin||

    Wow, what an ass. He's essentially a Bill Maher type "libertarian". And just so you all fucking know, Christians are becoming more libertarian every day. These "skeptics" don't deserve extra credit just because they are hostile to faith.

  • ||

    Only hostile to faith if it pertains to certain things.

    Faith is only bad if it is in invisible people. Skepticism of the lefty narrative will get you branded a heretic.

  • DJK||

    I read his post on gun control. What a mendacious bastard. I had to stop reading after he trumpeted the "4 people killed accidentally for every self-defensive gun use". The real number that matters is the number of crimes stopped by pulling a gun. No one knows the numbers here (these things tend to be way under reported for obvious reasons), but estimates put it in the hundreds of thousands at least. What a douche. He talks about ignoring the evidence available and then proceeds to do so himself.

  • tarran||

    A report from the Royal Society

    The unlikelihood of anything catastrophic occuring. BTW, the IPCC has a very interesting definition of what constitutes Abrupt and Irreversable.

    his prompted me to put a question to [Matt Collins (IPCC Lead Author Climate Projections)], which was the first I'd been able to raise via the chair all day (I'd tried in several talks). I said to Matt:

    "What the IPCC says, and what the media says it says are poles apart. Your talk is a perfect example of this. Low liklihood(sic) and low confidence for almost every nightmare scenario. Yet this isn't reflected at all in the media. Many people here have expressed concern at the influence of climate sceptics. Wouldn't climate scientists' time be better spent reining in those in the media producing irresponsible, hysterical, screaming headlines?"

    Tumbleweed followed for several seconds. Then Matt said:

    "Not my responsibility".
  • Sevo||

    "Not my responsibility".
    Which is true. But it seems to have been his responsibility to fear-monger for the last 10 years or so.

  • JWatts||

    Well now that wasn't his responsibility. That was a labor of love.

  • Kroneborge||

    So the models are not reliable enough, but yet they we should still believe them that something really bad happening probably won't happen?

  • Sevo||

    "but yet they we should still believe them that something really bad happening probably won't happen?"

    I'll bet if you put that in English, you're realize how silly it sounds.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That's great in practice but it'll never work in theory.

  • Sevo||

    "Now that the new IPCC report is out, the question that policymakers have to ask themselves is: Are the outputs of the models robust enough for them bet trillions of dollars on?"

    That is not the question that policymakers will ponder. The question to be answered is:
    "How do we fudge the data to keep people frightened of the process and keep the power in out hands?"

  • Alien Invader||

    ObamaCare proved that they don't even have to do that very well, anymore. Just get the right number of liberal a-holes in congress and you can jam anything through the mill.

    It's okay if it's unpopular, they'll put up with it anyway.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The IPCC has shown long ago that it is a political group, not one of science.

  • Juice||

    Just in case "intergovernmental panel" didn't clue a person in.

  • tarran||

    Two Minutes to Midnight by Steven McIntyre

    The following graph compares models to observations over the period 1979-2013, long enough to place the 1998 El Nino in the middle, but excluding the earlier hiatus of the 1950s and 1960s. 1979 is also when the satellite record commences. The figure is a standard box-and-whiskers diagram of a type routinely used in statistics (rather than some ad hoc method). I’ve shown models with multiple runs as separate boxes and grouped models with singleton runs together. On the right in orange, I’ve done a separate box-and-whisker plot for all models. (Lucia has recently done plots in a similar style: her results look similar, but I haven’t parsed them yet as I’ve been working on this post.)
    The figure shows that nearly every run of every model ran too hot over the 1979-2013 period, with many models running substantially too hot. The discrepancy can be seen with box-and-whiskers of the ensemble, but it pervades all models.

    The plot in question...

  • Oso Politico||

    Climate computer models only have two problems: Climate is a chaotic system with an unknown quantity of variables and feedbacks, and the other not insignificant problem - the data used in these models is totally unreliable, resulting in that old demon, GIGO.

  • jester||

    Let go of my GIGO.

  • JWatts||

    And you forgot the models themselves aren't validated to be any good. It's not like they pull some bog standard modelling software off the shelf that's used in numerous applications and plug their numbers into it. They've created a set of models from scratch, that often rely on the same unproven underlying assumptions and plugged in a lot of high error range data.

    To be fair, I have a much higher confidence in the data from 1979 onward, because it's backstopped by the satellite data. Which is almost certainly of much higher quality than the "reconstructed" temperature data and a bit better than the measured ground data (which didn't include huge chunks of the earth and sea until the late 20th century).

  • James Ard||

    Ron is one stubborn son of a gun. I'm beginning to think it would take Lake Okeechobee freezing over for him to admit he was wrong to trust the "science".

  • Ron Bailey||

    JA: Did you read the article?

  • James Ard||

    I read it closer and still don't see the mea culpa. Yes, their models are terrible, but is there a line in the article where you say the whole thing has been bunk all along?

  • Kroneborge||

    That's because the best science still says that yes the earth is warming, but there's still much that we don't understand.

    Still, what happens if our lack of understanding starts to error in the other direction?

  • Sevo||

    Kroneborge|10.4.13 @ 7:29PM|#
    "That's because the best science still says that yes the earth is warming, but there's still much that we don't understand."
    Warming at a rate which needs nothing other than human adaptation.

    "Still, what happens if our lack of understanding starts to error in the other direction?"
    Dunno. What happens if a volcano erupts under you tomorrow?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

    I am the great and powerfull OZ!

  • BigT||

    Pretty much everyone concerned with this issue agrees the world WAS warming.

    FIFY

  • JWatts||

    I've read up on the subject quite a bit, and I'm convinced that a) the Earth is warming and that b) C02 is a substantial factor.

    But on the other hand, I think the projected warming, coastal flooding and general catastrophic future scenarios are all complete hype.

    I think in the long run, we'll find that the Earth is slowly getting warmer, that it's been warmer than it currently is in the past 10 millenia and that humans (and the rest of the eco-sphere) will adapt to the gradual warming without much difficulty.

    Why is it that every time the reconstructed data is refined, the past gets colder? I call shenanigans. They've written the medieval warming period out of history like some kind of Orwellian novel.

  • DarrenM||

    But on the other hand, I think the projected warming, coastal flooding and general catastrophic future scenarios are all complete hype

    Yes, but I'm sure it would make a great movie.

  • ||

    I think anybody could agree that the earth WAS warming. But there's no way to know co2 is a substantial factory.

  • Benjamin||

    I keep wondering when people are going to realize the direct impact climate change policies will have on their own wallet. Then I read about that dipshit excited about paying $200/mon for health insurance and I lose all hope.

  • Russell||

    Can we trust Ron Bailey to judge climate models he couldn't construct, parameterize or run ?

  • sarcasmic||

    Can we trust Russell to know what an ad hominem argument is? Probably not.

    ad hominem argument
    Web definitions

    An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.
  • ||

    Huh? Trust has what to do with science? Oh, I know, two things; Jack and shit. Read the article. If you are skeptical about anything, look it up...verify. Fuck trust.

    Ron is a first rate science reporter. He has never given us false info and his analysis is often spot on. I disagree with him about certain things ( grrrrr...carbon tax? Really Ron? ) but I will read his stuff over almost anyone else.

  • triclops||

    Can we trust you to believe in models you can neither construct, parameterize, or run?

  • Russell||

    The basic qualification for spotting the shortcomimgs of badly constructed models is the ability to operate the tools used to construct ones that work- it is entirely ad rem to point out the difference between producers of peer reviewed science , those that merely report it , like Ron, and pundits who actively shun the scientific literature like Monckton and Delingpole.

  • Sevo||

    Russell|10.4.13 @ 10:23PM|#
    "The basic qualification for spotting the shortcomimgs of badly constructed models is the ability to operate the tools used to construct ones that work- "

    Oh, Russell, you twit you!
    Are you familiar with 'appeal to authority'?
    Did you read that "Specifically, at the United Nation's annual climate change conference in Bali, the U.K.'s Hadley Centre forecasted that between 2004 and 2014 the global average temperature would rise by around +0.3 degrees Celsius. Instead, the Nature Climate Change article reports a trend over the last 15 years of just +0.05 degrees Celsius per decade."
    IOWs the measured rise is an order of magnitude less than predicted.
    You see, twit, the measured amount has something to say about the predictions, and those who make FAILED predictions ought to learn from that.
    But those who pray to the mud momma aren't about to yield on their predictions.
    But do tell us when we can expect the rapture. Twit.

  • JWatts||

    The basic qualification for spotting the shortcomimgs of badly constructed models is the ability to operate the tools used to construct ones that work

    Or maybe you could just check the model against actual data. Say the temperature.

  • DJK||

    Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? The test is not against the actual observable but against another model? This is quite possibly the most ridiculous philosophy of science I've ever read.

  • DJK||

    And before I get told that I don't know shit about science, I have a PhD in physics from one of your trusted liberal institutions (Berkeley). I understand the scientific process pretty well.

  • Sevo||

    Russell seems to disagree, but has a hard time explaining why.
    I'm guessing Russell's faith has been blasphemed.

  • Russell||

    Get back to us when , if ever, you finish reading the IPCC report in question. Unless reading primary sources is an affront to your religion.

    When I've complain about the failure of estimates of climate sensitivity to converge on values with shrinking error bars, I haven't pretended to know where in the bayesian cloud those values lie- they may or may not coincide with my desired political outcomes , but those desires are not going to move the end points one iota.

  • Sevo||

    "When I've complain about the failure of estimates of climate sensitivity to converge on values with shrinking error bars, I haven't pretended to know where in the bayesian cloud those values lie- they may or may not coincide with my desired political outcomes , but those desires are not going to move the end points one iota."

    Yes, your religion isn't about to be affected by data.

  • JWatts||

    Get back to us when , if ever, you finish reading the IPCC report in question. Unless reading primary sources is an affront to your religion.

    So, have you read the entire IPCC report?

  • Edwin||

    We'll do that when the scientists actually release the source code for all their predictive programs, along with all the other data and stuff they keep hiding, AND start putting weight on only peer-reviewed works

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Then start reading the actual literature on the subject.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate.....ATE-201309

    Summary: Models failed.
    More in depth summary: p-value insufficient to reject the null hypothesis.

    Further, even the IPCC has been forced to admit that its ECS range has had to be revised down 0.5C. Even with all of this revision they are more certain that humans are the cause. That goes well beyond bizarre and into the realm of blind faith.

  • Ron Bailey||

    R: NO.

  • Russell||

    Thank you , Ron, as I'm trying to learn from their evolution myself, I have no interest in judging their jerky but impressive progress--

  • Eeyore Rifkin||

    "many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia"

    Bullshit. Only a handful of diehard kooks would try to defend that. It's weasly to the core. Claim that the earth has warmed since the last Little Ice Age, slip in something scary and vague, then finally claim there's wide agreement on the facts. Bullshit.

  • ||

    Many simulations produce four times more warming warning

  • Edwin||

    1) Water causes like 99% of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is from water

    2) Even if CO2 were increasing from humans, you really think the planet can't handle it? The earth is a stable system, and the only way you can have a stable system is with negative-feedback elements making up the larger system. The earth has had way more CO2 than we are supposedly adding in, and it ultimately was relatively stable, and certainly never had a "runaway effect"

    3) Talking about averages is meaningless in a chaotic system. Some systems are just chaotic and unpredictable - think the three-particle problem. Truly chaotic systems can't be predicted in the long term with math, and inter-relatedness in the system is actually limited.

  • hrsdty||

    Welcome to the science club buddy, you finally figured out that skepticism means investigation.

  • Jose Chung||

    "Are the outputs of the models robust enough for them bet trillions of dollars on?"

    No, but since when have politicians let the facts get in the way of a good narrative when it suits their purposes?

  • Anders||

    Just because they've been proven to be wildly inaccurate and used by hucksters doesn't mean the IPCC can't be trusted.

    I mean come on. It's the UN.

  • Danno||

    Create or Save thinking. The religion is never wrong. But Nature is self-regulating, and no species survives very long in geologic time scale. Nature will do just fine but probably not humans. One would think the big money spent of scientific research would solve the energy problem but still just over the horizon for infinity...

  • Sevo||

    ..."no species survives very long in geologic time scale. Nature will do just fine but probably not humans."

    You may be right, but humans are the first specie to alter its environment(s) to suit.

  • Danno||

    Birds build nests, foxes burrows, ants complex networks, etc. Assuring food and shelter.

  • Sevo||

    Danno|10.5.13 @ 1:12PM|#
    "Birds build nests, foxes burrows, ants complex networks, etc. Assuring food and shelter."

    When ants make a nest that allows them to live in the arctic, you get back to us.
    Oh, and to avoid any sophomoric response, the *same* ants that live in the tropic.

  • ||

    uptil I saw the bank draft for $9693, I didn't believe that my sister woz like realey taking home money parttime at there labtop.. there uncles cousin has done this for only about eighteen months and at present cleard the depts on there villa and bought a great Jaguar XJ. he said

    http://WWW.WORKS23.COM

  • Russell||

    One good rant deserves another so here's the other half of your standardized Gish Gallop from Dellers, writing in the Daily Telegraph

    "The Warmists who comprise the climate scientist establishment spend so much time communicating with other warmists and so little time paying attention to the views of dissenting scientists such as Henrik Svensmark – or Fred Singer or Richard Lindzen or indeed Anthony Watts – that it simply hasn't occurred to them that their temperature records need adjusting downwards not upwards.

    What Watts has conclusively demonstrated is that most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable. Around 90 per cent have had their temperature readings skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect. While he has suspected this for some time what he has been unable to do until his latest, landmark paper (co-authored with Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville) is to put precise figures on the degree of distortion involved.

    For the full story go to Watts Up With That NOW!"

    It's sad to see Ron's audience enlisting on the losing side in the war against cliche'.

  • Sevo||

    "It's sad to see Ron's audience enlisting on the losing side in the war against cliche'."
    Concern troll is boring.

  • shipley130||

    Notice how the Federales want us all to believe them every time about every thing, even though they get things wrong all the time?

  • ReasonableS||

    I thought much of the pause in global warming over the past 15 years was due to cooling Pacific ocean temperatures due to the El Nino and La Nina effects. Unfortunately that heat didn't go away and is predicted to cause an accelerated warming of global temperatures once we come out of the current cycle.

    Climatologist are talking about getting away from the ten year reports and doing smaller reports more frequently to do a better job at informing the public.

    http://www.theguardian.com/env.....al-warming

  • Sevo||

    ReasonableS|10.5.13 @ 9:14PM|#
    "I thought much of the pause in global warming over the past 15 years was due to cooling Pacific ocean temperatures due to the El Nino and La Nina effects. Unfortunately that heat didn't go away and is predicted to cause an accelerated warming of global temperatures once we come out of the current cycle."

    More unfortunately for your theory, there is no evidence for those claims, other than 'we can't find what we hope is there!'

  • Sevo||

    Further, if you look at the chart The Guardian offers (and The Guardian is *NOT* to be trusted), they call it a "hiatus".
    Now that term presumes it is some sort of interruption in a continuing process; IOWs, it is *NOT* a term that suits the evidence. The evidence shows the increase stopped 15 years ago and there isn't a shred of evidence that it will begin increasing again.
    What's more is that the measured increase when the temps were increasing, didn't match the models.
    You got several problems.

  • robnbc||

    Lets face it, when 97% of the worlds top climate scientist are 95% certain that burning fossil fuels is moving us toward a +2 degree tipping point in climate change, its a good bet that we have a serious problem. Lets get past the fossil fuel funded talking points and discuss what policies will best insure that our children have a hospitable climate in which to raise their children. We owe them that regardless of our political differences.

  • Sevo||

    robnbc|10.5.13 @ 10:21PM|#
    "Lets face it, when 97% of the worlds top climate scientist are 95% certain that burning fossil fuels is moving us toward a +2 degree tipping point in climate change, its a good bet that we have a serious problem."

    When suckers who buy this crap promote it, it's a good bet we have a failure of skeptical thinking.
    Sorry robnbc, you seem to have missed the reading assignment.

  • ||

    Come back when the temps have risen more than .01 degrees per year over 60 damn years.

  • Sevo||

    Just for the heck of it, I find this listed under "Politics" on a web site:
    "Karen weakens to depression off La. coast"
    Now who would see that as 'political'?

  • lilyhi||

    I just want to add my story. I get paid over $87 per hour working online with Google! I work two shifts 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening. And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids. Its by-far the best job I’ve had. I follow this great link ,, www.Pow6.com

  • Ura Fecal||

    Yes, they can be trusted to the extent that I will give birth next time to a human being next time I visit the commode. How many chances do you get? They are over the 3 strikes and you're out. Add that to the Climatgate lies, omissions, and falsified data.

  • ludovikazaleskas||

    up to I saw the check saying $4560, I didnt believe ...that...my cousin could truley bringing in money part time on their laptop.. there uncle started doing this for only about 16 months and recently took care of the mortgage on there apartment and bought a top of the range Aston Martin DB5. visit this site
    =========================
    http://WWW.Works23.Com
    =========================

  • wooffjordy||

    Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to Economy tab for more detail ...

    =============== http://WWW.MAX34.COM

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement