Aletho News


Satellite Temperature Data Show Almost All Climate Model Forecasts Over the Last 40 Years Were Wrong


A major survey into the accuracy of climate models has found that almost all the past temperature forecasts between 1980-2021 were excessive compared with accurate satellite measurements. The findings were recently published by Professor Nicola Scafetta, a physicist from the University of Naples. He attributes the inaccuracies to a limited understanding of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the number of degrees centigrade the Earth’s temperature will rise with a doubling of carbon dioxide.

Scientists have spent decades trying to find an accurate ECS number, to no avail. Current estimates range from 0.5°C to around 6-7°C. Without knowing this vital figure, the so-called ‘settled’ science narrative around human-caused climate change remains a largely political invention, not a credible scientific proposition. Professor Scafetta has conducted extensive work into climate models and is a long-time critic of their results and forecasts. In a previous work, he said many of the climate models should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”. Along with around 250 professors, he is a signatory to the World Climate Declaration which states there is no climate emergency and also notes climate models are “not remotely plausible as global tools”.

Scafetta’s latest work grouped 38 major climate models into low, medium and high ECS values, ranging between 1.8°C and 5.7°C. He found that models in the medium and high category “ran hot” in over 95% and 97% of cases respectively. The lower models were said to have done better when compared to global warming calculated for the period by the major surface datasets of 0.52-0.58°C. But the UAH satellite data showed warming up to 30% less during this period, suggesting even the low warming models produced “excessive warming” from 1980-2021.

According to Scafetta, these results show that the ECS figure could be as low as 1.2-2°C. Particular concern is expressed about surface temperature records that “appear to be severely affected by non-climatic warming biases”. Scafetta concludes that surface-based temperature records are likely to be affected by warming biases, such as the urban heat island effect due to expanding urban development, and subject to natural oscillations that are not reproduced by climate models. He concludes: “The global warming expected for the next few decades may be even more moderate than predicted by the low ECS-GCMs [Global Circulation Models], and could easily fall within a safe temperature range where climate adaptation policies will suffice.”

Scafetta’s work is vital in providing a realistic insight into the dominant role played by climate models in promoting the command-and-control Net Zero political agenda. Many of the constantly promoted climate thermogeddon scares use forecasts based on high ECS values. The higher values are behind every statement from bureaucrats, politicians, green activists and journalists that we are heading for a 2-3°C increase in global temperature in the near future. In the absence of any definitive ECS figure, these predictions are guesses.

In fact, once the ECS figure falls to around 1°C, it is moving into margin of error territory. However, many scientists have more or less given up trying to calculate ECS, since measuring the non-linear atmosphere is proving as difficult as it ever was. The atmosphere is a chaotic system with many powerful influences reacting unpredictably with each other. The huge heat transfers that obviously have a considerable part to play in climate are far from completely understood. Recent suggestions that modellers can ‘attribute’ single event weather events to human-caused climate change are unprovable, and little more than figments of over-active, agenda-driven imaginations. Furthermore, it is possible that carbon dioxide becomes ‘saturated’ beyond certain levels and its effect as a warming gas rapidly declines.

What we do know is that over the last 20 years, global warming has started to run out of steam. The latest September UAH satellite data, considered in some scientific circles as the most accurate measurement we have, show the current standstill has been extended to eight years. But whereas satellite data are common and invaluable in many geographical fields, these temperature results are less welcome. It is not hard to see why. Scafetta calculates that the results since the start of recordings around 1980 are 30% below surface temperature datasets. As it happens, the two adjustments since 2013 by the U.K.’s Met Office to its HadCRUT global surface temperature record have increased recent warming by a similar amount. Similar upward adjustments are to be found in the other major global datasets. A previous temperature pause from about 1998-2010 is no longer visible in these records.

Claims of ‘record’ heat years and ever higher temperatures are taken exclusively from the surface records. The satellite record is largely ignored. There are even attempts to cancel the inconvenient figures, with Google AdSense recently ‘demonetising’ the site of Dr. Roy Spencer, the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, one of the main compilers of the UAH satellite record. The record, of course, that is a vital part of Professor Scafetta’s work investigating the accuracy of climate models.

October 9, 2022 - Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science


  1. Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball On 97% Consensus: “Completely False And Was Deliberately Manufactured”!
    By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | August 24, 2015
    Canadian climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball recently published a new book on climate science: The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. What follows later (below) is a short interview with Dr. Ball.
    “Government propaganda” … “corrupt science”
    In the book Ball writes that the failed predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), coupled with failed alarmist stories such as the complete loss of Arctic sea ice by 2013, are making the public increasingly skeptical of government propaganda about global warming. People were already skeptical because they knew weather forecasts, especially beyond forty-eight hours, were invariably wrong, and so today more people understand there is no substance to global warming claims and that it is based on corrupt science. Now they are asking: Who perpetrated the deception and could a small group of people deceive the world?

    In his book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science Dr. Ball explains who did it and why.
    Ball was among the earlier dissidents and as a result he became the target of media articles and false information promoted by a scurrilous website funded by a chairman of a large environmental foundation. He was a real threat because they couldn’t say he wasn’t qualified.

    Dr. Ball has been the subject of three lawsuits from a lawyer operating in British Columbia. For the first one, he decided to avoid the expense of a challenge and so he withdrew what he had written. Then, within nine days, he received two more from the same lawyer suing for defamation because of harsh criticism he made of a climate scientist. At that point, he and his family decided they had to fight back.

    As Ball carries on his legal battle he maintains that climate deception continues and that the public is paying a high price for completely unnecessary energy and economic policies based on the pseudoscience of the IPCC. Not to mention the social devastation of communities devastated by job losses.
    “Their last effective chance”

    Dr. Balls says the rhetoric and stream of misinformation increases as the perpetrators, now including the Pope, build up to their last effective chance to influence an increasingly skeptical world. When the Global Warming theme failed, they tried Climate Change. The Climate Change theme has failed, so now they are trying Climate Disruption as defined by President Obama’s science Czar, John Holdren—all to justify expensive government programs. The impetus for a global carbon tax and global governance represent the central theme of a climate conference scheduled for Paris in December 2015, the United Nations Climate Change Conference or COP21.

    What follows are some questions that Dr. Ball kindly answered:
    By what scientific reason do you think CO2’s role is far less?
    Water vapor is 95% of the total greenhouse gases by volume, while CO2 is approximately 4%. The human portion is only 3.4% of the total CO2. They try to claim CO2 is more effective, but it’s a false claim called “climate sensitivity”. The number the IPCC use for sensitivity has constantly declined and will reach zero.
    What factor has been the most responsible for the warming over the past 25 years?
    The same factor as it has always been, changes in the sun. The IPCC dismiss the sun because they only look at variation in radiative output, but that is only one of three ways the Sun affects global climate.
    What do you think the global temperature will do over the next few decades?
    Decline. The major short-term control of global temperature is variation in the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field. As it varies it determines the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. The cosmic radiation creates clouds in the lower atmosphere and it, like a shutter in the greenhouse it determines the sunlight reaching the surface and therefore the temperature.
    What do you think of the claimed “97% consensus”?
    It is completely false and was deliberately manufactured by John Cook at the University of Queensland. There are more detailed analyses of the corruption but this is the best layman’s account.
    On a scale of 1 to 10, how honest have the major climate institutes been with the public?
    -10. If they knew what was wrong it is deliberate and criminal. If they didn’t know they are grossly incompetent.

    Other comments by Dr. Ball:
    The biggest problem for the public is they can’t believe that an apparent majority of scientists seem to support the IPCC science. The simple answer is, very few are familiar with the science. They, like most of the public, assume other scientists would not distort, manipulate, or do anything other than proper science. When scientists find out, they are shocked, as exemplified in German meteorologist Klaus-Eckert Puls’s comment:
    “Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”


    Most people are ignorant of the fact that ROTHSCHILD is behind Climate Change:

    By Dr Kerry Bolton

    From New Dawn 133 (Jul-Aug 2012)
    This shows who is behind CLIMATE CHANGE:

    However, other avenues for profit besides the traditional dealings in gold bullion are emerging. The one for our era is credits for greenhouse emissions, and with this profit also comes new schemes for world control.

    In 2008 Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild, wrote a policy document on the issue.71 Linnett defines “greenhouse emissions” as the new form of “social market.” He states that while it must be free trade that operates in defining the value of the carbon emission exchange, what is required is an “international institution.” He writes that “such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match.”72 Linnett frankly states that this involves a “new world order”:

    That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely ‘saving the planet’ – perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order…73

    Of various methods suggested to limit carbon emissions, carbon trading is held by Linnet to be the most effective.74 Implicit in the various measures, including funding new technology and changing the consumption habits of individuals is, “that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some of their sovereignty to this world initiative.”75 “When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion.”76

    The system being proposed by Linnett, in the cause of “saving the planet,” is the consolidation of the international banking system under a central authority. Linnett states that the European nations have already ceded their sovereignty to the European Union; the next step being, “to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading.”77 “If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order.”78

    The world authority that Linnett proposes he calls the World Environment Authority (WEA). This would be based in what he calls a “world city.”79 Linnett suggests that this “world city” should be London, The City, due to it being “a world financial centre (possibly ‘the’ world financial centre).”80

    Whatever might be said about Wall Street, or the shift of global political power to Washington and New York, clearly The City still holds sway in the thinking of some of the primary oligarchs of international finance.

    Simon Linnett, Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential, London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008. Online at:, 4.72.Ibid.73.Ibid., 8.74.Ibid., 12.75.Ibid.76.Ibid., 12.77.Ibid., 18.78.Ibid., 15.79Ibid., 19.
    I have attached the PDF file!

    This article was published in New Dawn 133.
    If you appreciate this article, please consider a contribution to help maintain this website.
    K R Bolton, Revolution from Above, London: Arktos Media Ltd., 2011, passim.
    City of London, ‘What is the City of London?’,
    Ibid., “Business”,
    Ibid., ‘The Lord Mayor of the City of London’,
    ‘History of Temple Bar’,

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Pip | October 9, 2022 | Reply

    • Good effort, that. Call me a conspiracy theorist, I don’t care. I’m sick to death of the Media trying to scare me with “Global Warming”.(not to mention Corona Virus, and Monkey Pox, Blah, Blah) Just from my own experience of 73 years, it is no hotter today than it was when I was a child.
      Beware of Mainstream Media, trying to keep us all in a state of fear.

      If you can scare ‘the people’ you can manipulate them.


      Comment by brianharryaustralia | October 9, 2022 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.