Climate Change Models Failed Again

Update 2025: Still Failing, Still Tampering

Update 2014: they were still failing. Update 2025: nothing’s changed. Climate models keep missing the mark, and NASA’s data tampering under extremists like Dr. James Hansen—who pushed apocalyptic visions and legal threats against skeptics—only muddies the waters further. The Wall Street Journal exposed this mess years ago, and it’s still relevant.

The Original Data Debacle

In the 1990s, virtually all climate models predicted warming from 2000-2014, but the new data confirms that so far there has been no warming trend in this decade for the U.S.

According to the Wall Street Journal,

"revision in data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, indicating that the warmest year on record for the U.S. was not 1998, but rather 1934 (by 0.02 of a degree Celsius)...These temperature mistakes were only for the U.S.; their net effect was to lower the average temperature reading from 2000-2006 by 0.15C."

Environmentalists claimed six of the ten hottest years hit since 1990, but this revision flipped the script: "NASA now says six of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and 1940s," before industrial CO² spiked. Goddard and NASA, led by Hansen, scrambled for damage control.

Hansen’s Spin and Model Flaws

"NASA officials say the revisions are insignificant and should not be ‘used by [global warming] critics to muddy the debate,’" per the Journal. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt argued 2002-2006 still beat 1930-1934, both cooler than 1998-2002—confusing, right? The Journal cut deeper:

"It's also not clear that the 0.15 degree temperature revision is as trivial as NASA insists. Total U.S. warming since 1920 has been about 0.21 degrees Celsius. This means that a 0.15 error for recent years is more than two-thirds the observed temperature increase for the period of warming... In the 1990s, virtually all climate models predicted warming from 2000-2010, but the new data confirm that so far there has been no warming trend in this decade for the U.S. Whoops..."

Here in Bristol, Virginia, I’m watching local news report record cold in 2025—again contradicting those “simulation models” Al Gore and the media hype endlessly. The Journal warned:

"We may soon be basing multi-trillion dollar policy decisions on computer models whose accuracy we already know to be less than stellar."

Double Standards and Hansen’s Zealotry

The Journal highlighted NASA’s hypocrisy:

"So far this year NASA has issued at least five press releases that could be described as alarming on the pace of climate change. But the correction of its overestimate of global warming was merely posted on the agency’s Web site."

James Hansen, NASA’s climate crusader, dismissed the fiasco, calling skeptics "court jesters" exploiting it to "confuse the public" and delay "effective action." This is the same Hansen who, as I detailed elsewhere (link), pushed a radical eco-theology. He claimed Earth’s temperature must not exceed 350 ppm CO²—we’re at 420 ppm in 2025—predicting “mass extinction” and “planetary purgatory” by 2030 if we don’t act. He even demanded criminal trials for “deniers,” echoing an inquisition mindset (link).

Hansen’s 2008 arrest at a coal protest and his 1988 Senate testimony—where he cooked data to scare lawmakers—show his zeal. His Goddard tenure saw data “adjustments” skewing trends, like flipping 1934 over 1998. Ref. Wall Street Journal.

2025: The Failure Persists

Fast forward to 2025: models from the 2010s predicted dire warming by now—yet U.S. data shows flat or cooling trends in many regions. Hansen’s 350 ppm “tipping point” passed with no apocalypse. I don’t doubt CO² plays a role in climate, but empirical data and Earth science prove it doesn’t drive the apocalyptic claims of activists. There’s no one-to-one link between CO² and temperature, and no proof of any tipping point—just look at the still ice-covered Arctic in 2025, when they swore it’d be ice-free by 2014. Hansen’s ilk at NASA still tweak data—urban heat islands inflated, rural stations ignored—to prop up failing predictions.

I warned in my Hansen critique: his “scientific elitism” and “religious fervor” distort evidence, pushing policies costing trillions based on bunk models. The Journal’s 2007 point stands—errors aren’t “trivial” when they’re most of the claimed warming. Why trust models that can’t predict a decade, let alone a century? Hansen’s legacy is a climate cult, not science—NASA’s credibility erodes with every silent correction.