Confidence in Models

Kristy624 said:

So those who link here from Drudge are uneducated and ignorant, yet you are the one posting a bunch of
talking points and conspiracy theories from some left wing website. So let’s talk
about the science. The hypothesis of CAGW is that as CO2 rises, global
temperatures will rise.

Here are the predictions made by climate models we are supposed to have COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN:

According to the IPCC, between the years 2000-2009, growth in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning was, on average, 3% per year, which exceeds the growth estimated by 35 of the 40 SRES scenarios. Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions set a record in 2010, a 6% jump on 2009 emissions, exceeding even the “worst case” scenario cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. AR3 in 2001 projected a temperature rise of about 0.2
°C per decade for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.

So we should be 0.3 C warmer by now, but we aren’t.

In 2007 we were told:

The new model developed at the Met’s Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record. Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004.…

We should now be 0.3 C warmer than 2004, but we aren’t.

Then in 2009 we were told the latest super-duper models would silence the skeptics:

World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns. New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics.…

This study states we should have been 150% warmer by now than the IPCC predicted and we are nowhere near that.

That is a hypothesis fail.