The data on climate is not doing what the computer models say it should be doing. From Patrick Michaels and Caleb Stewart Rossiter at washingtonexaminer.com:
Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences.
Yet, the real-world data aren’t cooperating. They show only slight warming, mostly at night and in winter. According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in datafrom the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Should we trust these computer models of doom? Let’s find out by comparingthe actual temperatures since 1979 with what the 32 families of climate models used in the latest U.N. report on climate science predicted they would be.
STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC 
Pingback: The great failure of the climate models, by Patrick Michaels and Caleb Stewart Rossiter — STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: The great failure of the climate models, by Patrick Michaels and Caleb Stewart Rossiter | Waikanae Watch