Failed climate predictions from false prophets

[The Barbarian]

If sea levels rise by 2 feet, a lot of florida is in trouble.

It's already underway. Because of rising seas, much of Florida's fresh water is going away. Engineering can delay it, but it can't stop it.

 

[truthpls]

Go with the science.

Which science, they say opposite things, depending on who we ask. Better to go with God, He knows.

Ehrlich was always way out on the edge. Go with the guys whose predictions actually worked, like James Hanson, who correctly predicted the warming trend about thirty years in advance, using only carbon dioxide emissions.

I suppose with enough prophets, some would get it close in the short term. So what, we are supposed to pick and choose a few that actually seemed to be close?

It's already a crisis. The islands are losing ground now. The government hopes to make it work by erecting walls around some of the land to save it.

Change is always here on earth. The world changed a lot and will keep changing

 

[rambot]

Which science, they say opposite things, depending on who we ask. Better to go with God, He knows.

I suppose with enough prophets, some would get it close in the short term. So what, we are supposed to pick and choose a few that actually seemed to be close?

Change is always here on earth. The world changed a lot and will keep changing

You know what's GREAT though? If you take the aggregate of ALL of the models and you find the AVERAGE of ALL the model outputs, it actually mirrors really really, REALLY well!

 

[truthpls]

You know what's GREAT though? If you take the aggregate of ALL of the models and you find the AVERAGE of ALL the model outputs, it actually mirrors really really, REALLY well!

How about we take the aggregate of all the totally false and wrong ones and flush them all? Flush really really well.

 

[rambot]

How about we take the aggregate of all the totally false and wrong ones and flush them all? Flush really really well.

What would be the purpose of that? Do....do you know how averages work?

 

[truthpls]

What would be the purpose of that? Do....do you know how averages work?

Sure. The purpose would be to show that as a whole, prophesies from science can't be trusted. In that case, we toss the whole thing out. Like a bad witness in court caught lying

 

[The Barbarian]

Go with the science.

Which science

In the case of climatology, go with climatologists. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to me.

they say opposite things, depending on who we ask.

No, even in the 1970s, the vast majority of climatologists already knew that the climate would be warming. Would you like me to show you that?

I suppose with enough prophets, some would get it close in the short term.

But the vast majority of climatologists got it right, a half-century ago. Maybe someone is playing you on that.

Change is always here on earth.

But climatologists accurately predicted which way it would change, decades earlier. Maybe it's time to reconcile yourself with the reality.

How about we take the aggregate of all the totally false and wrong ones and flush them all?

There were a lot of people saying that the world was going to be cooling off. But few, if any of them were climatologists. Maybe there's an important message there for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure. The purpose would be to show that as a whole, prophesies from science can't be trusted.

I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that where subsequently confirmed. I notice pretty much all deniers made predictions that have since been falsified. Something can't be trusted, but it isn't science.

 

[truthpls]

Go with the science.

I go with truth

In the case of climatology, go with climatologists. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to me.

They go all over the place. Better to have some direction

No, even in the 1970s, the vast majority of climatologists already knew that the climate would be warming. Would you like me to show you that?

There was no consensus though? Funny, that

But the vast majority of climatologists got it right, a half-century ago. Maybe someone is playing you on that.

Not on the why. There is some disagreement as to why it gets a little warmer. Or cooler. Etc

But climatologists accurately predicted which way it would change, decades earlier. Maybe it's time to reconcile yourself with the reality.

They also predicted falsely. You don't get to ignore all predictions except the few who (for whatever reasons, right or wrong) were close.

There were a lot of people saying that the world was going to be cooling off. But few, if any of them were climatologists. Maybe there's an important message there for you.

Yes, not only climatologists are falsely prophesying.

 

[truthpls]

I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that where subsequently confirmed.

Do you? Was that in a dream?

I notice pretty much all deniers made predictions that have since been falsified. Something can't be trusted, but it isn't science.

What is a 'denier'? Where do we find a list of their prophesies that failed? Try to talk reality

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that were subsequently confirmed.

Do you?

Yep.

Was that in a dream?

American Meteorlogical Society. Someone actually did a literature search to check the denier stories. Turns out, they lied:

Bulletin of the American Meteorlogical Society Volume 89: Issue 9

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ​

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

What is a 'denier'?

Climate deniers are those who reject the evidence for global warming that was obvious to researchers even in the 1970s.

Where do we find a list of their prophesies that failed?

As the graph shows,there aren't many who got it wrong, but they do exist...​

Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool—it didn’t​

The anticlimate-science blogosphere’s trophy cabinet is bare.

Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool—it didn’t

The anticlimate-science blogosphere’s trophy cabinet is bare.

arstechnica.com

Welcome to reality.

 

[The Barbarian]

Go with the science.

I go with truth

Not this time. In the case of climatology, go with climatologists. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to me. Even in the 1970s, the vast majority of climatologists already knew that the climate would be warming. I just showed you that.

There was no consensus though?

See above. Consensus. Deniers lied about it. For reasons we all understand. The vast majority of climatologists got it right, a half-century ago. Maybe someone is playing you on that.

Not on the why. There is some disagreement as to why it gets a little warmer.

Nope. It's well-established that greenhouse gases are responsible. We get cooling, too. Typically it's from major volcanic eruptions. Of late, they don't actually cool things off, they just moderate the rise in temperatures a bit. Would you like to learn about that?

Climatologists accurately predicted which way it would change, decades earlier. Maybe it's time to reconcile yourself with the reality.

They also predicted falsely. You don't get to ignore all predictions except the few who (for whatever reasons, right or wrong) were close.

See above. You were badly misled.

 

[truthpls]

I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that were subsequently confirmed.

Nothing to do with why. The carbon is the cause theories are not something all agree on, to put it mildly.

So it looks like there were hot, neutral and cooling papers. Hilarious. When one sort of comes true, you can dismiss the rest and claim accuracy!
And if the world warmed because of the sun or cycles of some sort rather than man's impact, then the causes for the warming were not what you thought. Not sure how you thought this was something to brag about?

 

[truthpls]

Go with the science.

Better to go with truth and God.

Not this time. In the case of climatology, go with climatologists. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to me. Even in the 1970s, the vast majority of climatologists already knew that the climate would be warming. I just showed you that.

See above. Why it was changing is the issue, and also the fact that you have all bases covered (hotter, colder, neutral) so how could some of them (despite not knowing the actual causes) be wrong?? When prophets predict all possible outcomes, then you do not get to crown the lucky guessers as true prophets.

Nope. It's well-established that greenhouse gases are responsible. We get cooling, too.

? Which is it?
There are voices in the scientific world that disagree as to what causes it.

Typically it's from major volcanic eruptions. Of late, they don't actually cool things off, they just moderate the rise in temperatures a bit. Would you like to learn about that?

"It" is from? What? The warming, neutral or cooling? You do realize volcanoes existed in the past as well?

Climatologists accurately predicted which way it would change, decades earlier.

They also predicted falsely. Therefore they are all disqualified. Forever. Really.

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that were subsequently confirmed.

Nothing to do with why.

You're wrong about that. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.

So it looks like there were hot, neutral and cooling papers.

As you now realize, even in the 1970s, when climatology was still a new discipline, most of the researches predicted warming. And as you know, they were right. And the few who predicted cooling were proven wrong.

When one sort of comes true,

Which is what happened. The predicted warming trend is now an observed fact:

And if the world warmed because of the sun or cycles of some sort rather than man's impact, then the causes for the warming were not what you thought.

James Hanson tested that idea by predicting temperatures based on carbon emissions alone. And the results showed that he was right. It's not all there is to global temperature, of course. We just left a period of lowered solar output. Normally, temperatures would have dropped. But they only increased by a somewhat slower rate.

Not sure how you thought this was something to brag about?

His model turned out to be remarkably accurate, considering the relatively small amount of data he had to work with.

“The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.

Those were the words of James Hansen, then the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to the U.S. Senate Energy committee on a sweltering June day in 1988. Thirty years on, the overwhelming consensus from scientists is that Hansen was right—and most would say that far too little has been done since to address the threat.

1988 turned out to be the hottest year since modern instrumental records began in the 19th century. That mark has since been broken, in 1990, 1998, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The global average temperature has not gone up quite as much as Hansen predicted—among other things, 30 years ago scientists lacked the sophisticated instruments, accumulated data and vast computing power informing today’s climate models—but he was remarkably close given the limitations, and was dead right on the overall trend.

James Hansen’s Climate Warning, 30 Years Later

Three decades after Hansen first warned Congress about global warming, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that he was right—and most would say that far too little has been done to address the threat.

news.climate.columbia.edu

 

[The Barbarian]

"It" is from? What? The warming, neutral or cooling? You do realize volcanoes existed in the past as well?

Sulfur dioxide, mostly. It cools the atmosphere. But carbon emissions have pretty much overwhelmed the occasional major eruptions. They used to make things a lot colder. The Krakatoa eruption, for example, produced a "year without a summer." No more.

See above. Why it was changing is the issue, and also the fact that you have all bases covered (hotter, colder, neutral) so how could some of them (despite not knowing the actual causes) be wrong??

A few thought perhaps particulates might make things colder. But the majority knew, even then, that more atmospheric carbon would warm things up. And this was first predicted in the 1800s, so it wasn't exactly new science.

There are voices in the scientific world that disagree as to what causes it.

A very small minority. And getting smaller as warming predictions continue to be confirmed. Still, there were a very few who predicted cooling.

They also predicted falsely.

Yep. And the climatologists turn out to have had it right. We are continuing to see the earth get warmer.

 

[truthpls]

I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that were subsequently confirmed.

So what? There were predictions for cooler as well. Those failed. Why would we hold up one guesser who was on the winning side, in that his guess happened to be right?

I notice your claim is at odds with the claims of many as well

example: "Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4"

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

or this

"
In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus."

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.

www.fraserinstitute.org

You're wrong about that. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.

He attributed it to that. Others, with more recent knowledge, attribute to something else. Big deal. They might as well play pin the tail on the donkey. The one who pins it closest wins. The problem is that they are blind.

As you now realize, even in the 1970s, when climatology was still a new discipline, most of the researches predicted warming. And as you know, they were right. And the few who predicted cooling were proven wrong.

Then you admit some predicted other things. And even if some predicted it, the 'why' is what must be proven. Then we have the preachers of the new green religion flying in on jets to climate gatherings! Hypocrites as well as false prophets.

Which is what happened. The predicted warming trend is now an observed fact:

What happened is a warming trend. Why we don't know. We also had many of the experts saying the opposite would happen! That destroys all their credibility.

James Hanson tested that idea by predicting temperatures based on carbon emissions alone. And the results showed that he was right. It's not all there is to global temperature, of course. We just left a period of lowered solar output. Normally, temperatures would have dropped. But they only increased by a somewhat slower rate.

Tested? Show how? Ha

His model turned out to be remarkably accurate, considering the relatively small amount of data he had to work with.

Now they admit he was basing it on precious little.

“The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.

Those were the words of James Hansen, then the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to the U.S. Senate Energy committee on a sweltering June day in 1988. Thirty years on, the overwhelming consensus from scientists is that Hansen was right—and most would say that far too little has been done since to address the threat.

? Mentioning a greenhouse effect was detected means all his prophesies based on precious little are true as well as all other prophesies from climate prophets?? No Was there ever a greenhouse effect in history? What are the causes? Proof?

We need more than someone noting or guessing a trend! We need to know why. And no matter the reasons why, the end is already prophesied in the bible by God. Of all the things man needs to worry about, farting cows is really not on the top of the list.

 

[The Barbarian]

So what? There were predictions for cooler as well. Those failed.

So you now realize that those people didn't get it right, and you should listen to the people who did get it right. I think you just proved my point for me.

Why would we hold up one guesser who was on the winning side, in that his guess happened to be right?

Even in the 1970s, it was the great majority of climatologists who got it right, and a small minority who got it wrong.

I notice your claim is at odds with the claims of many as well

There will always be those who don't agree. Point is, most climatologists, even in the 1970s, were correct in predicting warming, while deniers were predicting cooling. If you're smart, you go with the guys who have a record of getting it right.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses.

Polls don't determine science. Predictions that are confirmed determine science. It just so happens that the great majority of climatologists got it right even 50 years ago. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.

However...

Published 15 May 2013
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature ​

Abstract ​

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

He attributed it to that. Others, with more recent knowledge, attribute to something else.

Nope. Carbon dioxide is still the primary forcing for a warming climate. That could change if the permafrost melts, releasing huge amounts of methane. But so far, that hasn't happened, as the evidence indicates.

Big deal.

In science, it's the only deal. Theories that work are accepted. Those that don't work are discarded.

James Hanson tested that idea by predicting temperatures based on carbon emissions alone. And the results showed that he was right. It's not all there is to global temperature, of course. We just left a period of lowered solar output. Normally, temperatures would have dropped. But they only increased by a somewhat slower rate.

Tested? Show how? Ha

A look back at how accurate James Hansen's climate projections were from the 1980s ​

The climate projections were based on three potential emission scenarios with A, being the worst case.

Looking at the chart below, which shows the projected temperature changes for each scenario from 30 years ago versus what has actually happened (observations).

As you can see, the observed global temperature increase over the past 30 years has been closest to scenario C and at times, between scenario C and B.
The projected changes (1984-2017) for each scenario were the following:

Scenario A: 0.33+/- 0.03 deg. C. per decade
Scenario B: 0.28+/-0.03 deg C. per decade
Scenario C: 0.16+/-0.03 deg C. per decade

The actual observed temperature change for the 1984-2017 period was 0.19+/-0.03 deg C. per decade for NASA GISTEMP and 0.21+/- 0.03 deg C. per decade for Cowtan Way method.

In order to make these projections, the climate models with their three scenarios had to project the changes in the various greenhouse gas emissions over the period.
...
As you can see, with just natural forcings alone, the global temperature trend would have been close to neutral if not slightly lower. Greenhouse warming is clear. Hansen was correct in 1988 that we were already seeing the effects of man-made global warming.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/a-look-back-at-how-accurate-james-hansens-climate-projections-were-from-the-1980s/2717

We need more than someone noting or guessing a trend!

As you now realize, Hanson accurately predicted the warming trend using only carbon dioxide emissions. We now have means to be even more accurate, using Hanson's model and adding knowledge gained over those decades.

Mentioning a greenhouse effect was detected means all his prophesies based on precious little are true as well as all other prophesies from climate prophets??

You're getting overexcited. Hanson tested his predictions by seeing how well they matched reality. As you see, it was a very good result. No magic, just careful science.

We need more than someone noting or guessing a trend! We need to know why.

Hanson tested that. It's almost entirely due to increases in carbon dioxide, a result that was first predicted in the 1800s.

And no matter the reasons why, the end is already prophesied in the bible by God.

God made man the steward of His creation on Earth. And as you just learned, what we do, does make a difference.

Of all the things man needs to worry about, farting cows is really not on the top of the list.

Cows don't fart carbon dioxide. They do belch methane, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but the relatively small amount has so far not made much of a difference. Ignorance is your enemy. But it's fixable. Worth a try?

 

[truthpls]

So you now realize that those people didn't get it right, and you should listen to the people who did get it right. I think you just proved my point for me.

No. When a coven of people all predict different things and many are shown to be lies, we should not believe the ones who may have gotten it seemingly right. We should reject anything the coven says.

Even in the 1970s, it was the great majority of climatologists who got it right, and a small minority who got it wrong.

Jeanne Dixon got many things right. Same sort of thing. Because she also was wrong, we toss it all out.

There will always be those who don't agree. Point is, most climatologists, even in the 1970s, were correct in predicting warming, while deniers were predicting cooling. If you're smart, you go with the guys who have a record of getting it right.

Many of those who do not agree are in the group of experts that prophesy. All in the name of science.

Polls don't determine science. Predictions that are confirmed determine science. It just so happens that the great majority of climatologists got it right even 50 years ago. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.

The link I posted actually says something like almost half did not agree it was human caused.

Nope. Carbon dioxide is still the primary forcing for a warming climate.

Yet some say otherwise. Why would I accept prophesy based on that? The prophesies conflict with the bible future prophesies. Choose.

That could change if the permafrost melts, releasing huge amounts of methane. But so far, that hasn't happened, as the evidence indicates.

Fantasy. Jesus is returning to earth to judge it and rule and make it better. Wild fantasy based on fearmongering and partial information is not going to change anything. If you notice it is just another tool to help some ungodly people achieve more power.

In science, it's the only deal. Theories that work are accepted. Those that don't work are discarded.

No. There are conflicting deals in science. You don't get to pick out a few unburned pieces of wood from the fire and claim that the fire is cool.

James Hanson tested that idea by predicting temperatures based on carbon emissions alone. And the results showed that he was right.

No. Any results based on partial information that happen to be close means little. I could say that Jack in the beanstalk pours out a trillion gallons a day of hot water, so that temperatures will rise a bit over the next 20 years! Once they rise for whatever actual reason, many think I was right that jack did it.

It's not all there is to global temperature, of course. We just left a period of lowered solar output. Normally, temperatures would have dropped. But they only increased by a somewhat slower rate.

There will be a period soon of completely different solar output the bible says! The sun will go dark a third of the day. Later it goes out fully. The issue becomes what actually causes the changes in the solar output?

As you can see, the observed global temperature increase over the past 30 years has been closest to scenario C and at times, between scenario C and B.

Just as it might be close to Jack pouring hot water onto earth. The actual causes are not universally accepted in science. Or known. The bible says there will be a time coming when it will be far hotter than it has ever been, scorching the earth. The game here is not 'let's believe one of the scientists who seem to have gotten it close'. The game is, either they know or they do not know, and the pile of prophesies must be weighed together.

You're getting overexcited. Hanson tested his predictions by seeing how well they matched reality. As you see, it was a very good result. No magic, just careful science.

They do not match the reality of bible predictions if we add a little more time. They do not match other predictions from the science world. They do not prove the cause is what he assumed...etc. They have no more credibility than Jack. By the way, what mechanism exists in such prophesies to predict independent of the known trend of more and more carbon in the air? Whatever causes a trend of warming for several decades would also find that carbon increased. So if they blamed it all on that known factor of man pumping more carbon into the world, how would we know that was actually the cause? Maybe we have a trend of warming going on at the same time as more humans pumping more carbon out as well? What reason is there to exclude all other possible causes?

God made man the steward of His creation on Earth. And as you just learned, what we do, does make a difference.

He did not make us steward of the sun! Or the weather. Nor did He make us prophets to know the future, except the few in the past whom He empowered to do so. The scientists obviously were not empowered by God since the sum of their predictions was not true.

Cows don't fart carbon dioxide. They do belch methane, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide,

God owns the cattle on a thousand hills! I do not believe that His cows are a danger to mankind! Only by swallowing the stated reason for weather changes (methane etc) would we worry about that. A more probable reality would be that if some wanted to control mankind in diet etc.

but the relatively small amount has so far not made much of a difference.

Yet they are setting up factories to produce insect based 'food' for mankind as we speak. Of all things to worry about, the stated prophesies and fears of some scientists and godless fearmongers are not high on the list.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. When a coven of people all predict different things and many are shown to be lies,

... we call them "climate deniers." Maybe your coven is different, but most aren't.

we should not believe the ones who may have gotten it seemingly right

That's the difference between science and superstition. In science, when predictions are validated by evidence they are accepted as true.

Jeanne Dixon got many things right.

If you think so, she fooled you.

Because she also was wrong, we toss it all out.

And we accept the predictions of the great majority of climatologists because their predictions were confirmed by subsequent events.
There will always be those who don't agree. Point is, most climatologists, even in the 1970s, were correct in predicting warming, while deniers were predicting cooling. If you're smart, you go with the guys who have a record of getting it right.

Many of those who do not agree are in the group of experts that prophesy.

Not all deniers claim to be prophets. Most of them are merely wrong, not religious cranks.
Polls don't determine science. Predictions that are confirmed determine science. It just so happens that the great majority of climatologists got it right even 50 years ago. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.

The link I posted actually says something like almost half did not agree it was human caused.

That's not the only thing deniers got wrong:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
(link above)

In science, it's the only deal. Theories that work are accepted. Those that don't work are discarded.

I see that your new religious ideas are incompatible with the reality. And I get that you're not happy. But that's how reality works. Why not set your pride aside, accept God's word as it is instead of your revisions, and just let it be?