95% Of Climate Models Agree With Each Other, But Not With Reality

What is the conclusion of AGW proponents when 95% of the climate models used to predict what the climate will be 5, 10, 50, or 100 years from now doesn't match weather observations?

The weather observations must be wrong.

This flies in the face of scientific method, which states that if the observations and/or experimental results don't match a hypothesis, then the hypothesis is wrong. But in the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming, if the observations don't match the hypothesis, then the data must be changed to fit, disregarded, or explained away. One thing ClimateGate showed us is how the AGW faithful have tried to do all three. But with all of that, the actual observations are showing warmists that they have to rethink their their vaunted climate models.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

The accusation is often made that AGW skeptics are “in the pay of big oil” and that their only motivation is to collect a fat check to dispute warming. But looking more closely at where many of the warmists receive their funding, you find that many have a financial interest in crippling our existing sources of energy in favor of ineffective, expensive, and heavily taxpayer-subsidized 'alternative' energy. So who is it in this debate that are being bought and paid for? It's not the skeptics.

But that won't stop AGW supporters from using a “variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like 'most warming since the 1950s is human caused' or '97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming', neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good,” in an effort to convince people who are even less informed about the reality of climate change to give up more of their hard earned money, greatly reduce their standard of living, and hand over their freedoms to people who supposedly know better how to Save The Earth.