That post was about the important note made by Anthony Watts on his blog that in the final draft of the IPCC AR5 report there was an important graph that showed directly how the academic / IPCC computer models were not in agreement with the global temperature anomaly data of the last 15 years. But nothing in the report really commented on the obvious conclusion from the graph that they themselves had made.
Now that AR5 is public a very important needs to be made that the IPCC at the last moment changed the report in critical points such that without saying it explicitly, the IPCC has for all intents and purposes admitted that their computer models need to be adjusted to account for the last 15 years of data.
In summary, in 1988 James Hansen proclaimed and projected that the world average temperatures would warm 0.5 deg C per decade through 2050, implying 6 deg C warming by the end of the 21st century, if drastic action was not taken to change course. That would be a significant change. It is the goal to enact such drastic change to avoid the proposed disaster which launched the current global warming alarmism movement and encouraged it to take on such political / legal characteristics.
Over time the IPCC projections have continued to moderate this original projection. In the next to the last version of the latest IPCC report, their projection had reduced to 0.13 to 0.33 deg C / decade. This is consistent with their overall current models. It should be noted this is only 26% to 66% of the warming originally projected by Hansen in 1988, which started the movement. This
The big news is that in the final published report, the IPCC significantly lowered their projected warming to 0.10 to 0.23 deg C per decade out to 2050, implying a warming of only 0.9 to 2.1 deg C by the year 2100 and only 20% to 46% of the original Hansen projection.
What is more important is that by giving such guidance they are not only lowering their guidance but they are implicitly saying that there is a major problem with their computer models in that the range currently given by them is wrong. This can be seen in Figure 1 by noting that originally the last draft placed the projections basically in the middle of the range of model projections (the thick green arrow). But now the official projection is at the very low end of the computer model projections. This can be seen by comparing the length of the thick blue and thick purple lines on the far right of the graph.
The momentum of declining projections over time is shown by Christopher Monckton in a summary graph as follows:
This is objective fact of just noting projections by the IPCC itself. Any self-critical scientific thinker would have to take a major pause when viewing that and ask what truly is the basis of the attempted political and legal activism of this movement when their own provided scientific data (the computer models) have been moving so significantly against their original thesis.
The answer is, IMO, this is a fundamental human individual behavior that one sees in all kinds of human activities. It is group think. The original idea was proposed, which is fine. Data was provided to support the idea. Research has been done to validate or invalidate, which is fine. But in the meantime, as the original scientific thesis weakened, the political and social aspects of the movement have strengthened. And at this time the movement is fueled primarily by the political and social aspects, not the scientific.
The scientific basis of the movement, their "95% accurate computer models" were just abandoned with minimum fanfare. The scientific basis of the global warming movement took a major step backwards and without any explicit notice by the leadership. In spite of the ever-claimed "consensus" the movement is now left with not much more than professional and political group think.
But this is how these things happen among us humans. The dynamic and polished leaders of a movement, who gather a following and then proclaim and enforce the orthodoxy, are the first to disbelieve and quietly intellectually abandon what they have created while letting the 'little people' go on believing the original crude version of the faith. The institution must go on (surely for the greater good), even if its original justification has vanished.
Finally, the topic of global temperature variation and climate change is and will continue to be a valid one for scientific investigation. It is still possible, even probable, that there is some climate sensitivity to CO2 produced by human fossil fuel activity. But all indications are now, even by the IPCC's own implicit admission, that this sensitivity is significantly lower than has been assumed by various modelers over the last 2 decades. In fact the very idea of a single numeric "sensitivity" could very well be a major over simplification as the global climate system is so complex with many great and small feedback systems, that the reduction of the matter to a computer program written by a grad student or two appears more and more on the face of it to be a very bold intellectual hubris.
See another summary of this topic by Barry Brill here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models/
2.Monckton, Christopher. "IPCC Silently Slashes Its Global Warming Predictions in the AR5 Final Draft | Watts Up With That?" Watts Up With That. January 1, 2014. Accessed January 12, 2014. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/. The graph has been slightly modified by me with new colors to make it easier to discuss.