Much of the bogus predictions were based on flawed observations and bad ideas like the hockeystick data normalization problem, and a failure to account for the

Much of the bogus predictions were based on flawed observations and bad ideas like the hockeystick data normalization problem, and a failure to account for the trend of deglaciation which predates industrialization. A general discounting of solar radiance, misunderstanding albedo, and pushing a low CO2 norm was also part and parcel to this hogwash. We knew there were incorrectly sited weather sensors that fed data into the climate record, just like ASOS, receiving prop blast and jetwash. Some HCN sensors that had been correctly sited became incorrect over time due to urbanization and industrialization. The discongruence between space based observations and in-situ flawed sensors are the clearest indication of this. This is also why we saw the rise of the HCN-Reference. We also saw a better understanding of the medieval warm period which, although potentially regionalized, is not without precedents. The process of fixing of these flaws, we call that science. However, this has not stopped the religious cult from a rearguard action defending by whatever name they choose to call it these days.