So you still take "climate scientists" seriously?

Dear oh dear! All those naive newborns who trust "climate scientists"! Wake up and smell the scandal. Case in point, Wattsupwiththat carries a report today from the University of Wisconsin-Madison of a new study that can't avoid the fact that the models and the data are now in clear, unambiguous contradiction. From the report:

“We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions,” says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. “Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.”

A real scientist, of course, would conclude that, things having been checked and rechecked (see definition of "robust"), the models are wrong. And since the models are the only evidence for the catastrophic global warming theory, which is already in serious disagreement with reality, that the theory is wrong too. But what do the authors of this "study" conclude?

Let's start with the jibberish first:

“The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer,” Liu says.

Nope, sorry. The fundamental laws of the English language say that the phrase "gets warmer" means that the temperature is going up. This is a tautology, nothing to do with the laws of physics whatever. We could live in the "road runner" universe in which coyote gets blown up, squashed by a boulder, and run over by a train, and pops up unharmed to try again tomorrow, and, as long as we are speaking English, as the temperature rises it gets warmer. What ridiculous nonsense!

Then there's the smug, fatuous nonsense:

"The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century."

But hang on! The only reason they have to believe that plant food (aka carbon dioxide) is causing dangerous warming is precisely the fact that, in the late 20th century, temperatures rose in a way that these same models could not explain without positing a high sensitivity of temperature to CO2. But if these models are wrong anyway at a time when human output of CO2 was negligible, then why can they not simply be wrong now because, well, the models are wrong?

"With their current knowledge, Liu and colleagues don’t believe any physical forces over the last 10,000 years could have been strong enough to overwhelm the warming indicated by the increase in global greenhouse gases and the melting ice sheet, nor do the physical models in the study show that it’s possible."

All one can say about that is: DON'T TRUST THESE 'SCIENTISTS' TO MAKE A CUP OF TEA!

Put some very cold water in the kettle. Turn the gas on to "extremely  high". Then turn the gas down a bit to "very high". According to these 'scientists', the very cold water should get even colder, because the temperature of the flame reduced. The nice old lady who used to make tea for the physics departments at University of Queensland knew better than that, before UQ became a bastion of climate fraudsters. So did the (real) scientists to whom she served the tea. Not today's "climate scientists", apparently.

Some commenters on the Wattsupwiththat article make further points:

tty says:

August 11, 2014 at 3:57 pm

Actually everybody who has the slightest interest in Quaternary Geology knows that it is normal for the beginning of interglacials to be warmest and for the temperatures to then gradually decline, just as they have done in the current interglacial. This is the way things are, and it’s about time that ‘climate scientists’ start taking note of the real world, even when it doesn’t fit their models.

And:

Hockey Schtick says:

August 11, 2014 at 3:45 pm

The doi link is broken for the paper, but the supplemental info is online:

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/08/08/1407229111.DCSupplemental/pnas.201407229SI.pdf

Says they used Marcott’s data, previously ripped to shreds by McIntyre & others

And for a final word:

Michael Wassil says:

August 11, 2014 at 4:45 pm

First they went after the LIA and MWP, now they’re going after the Holocene Optimum and everything in between. Can’t have that big hump of warming 10000 years ago warping the hockey schtick. Everything and anything that doesn’t support the ‘settled science’ has to disappear. I wonder when the Younger Dryas will go.