If you think predicting a single number and doing it this badly (temperatures), 33% within the correct value, and calling it science, you're the problem. Oh an

If you think predicting a single number and doing it this badly (temperatures), 33% within the correct value, and calling it science, you're the problem. Oh and nice cherry picking. With the given variable and its pretty small variance, I can cherry pick models too, and claim it is the rain god's judgement, or whatever. The fact that IPCC's models currently barely even give a consistent prediction, and the variance between them is so high, shows this isn't science. Everyone's attributing the signal in the models to CO2 or climate change, while the most reasonable explanation, is that the signal is a result of the agreed upon biases and approximations that everyone in "climate science" is copying from each other, and it is also clear that models that were developed independently give more diverging results, the Russian model even predicting cooling.