Who you gonna believe: official UN Models or your lyin' eyes?

Take a look at the chart to the right:  the blue squares and black circles represent the real temperature anomaly record since 1977. (The original can be found here.)  The many squiggly little lines are all of the IPCC endorsed model predictions of the global temperature anomaly (aka:  the 'settled science' we've heard so much about).  The dark black line is the mean of all of the individual predictions.  Notice how reality falls below every single predicted anomaly trend?  And how the gap between reality and the 'settled science' gets bigger and bigger?  Hmm.

This raises a rather interesting statistical point:  if Climate science is unbiased and going where the 'facts lead' then you would expect there to be a full Goldilocks and the Three Bears model dispersion - too hot, too cold and just right - around the real record.  And given all the money that has been spent on this 'settled science' you would expect that as predictions deviated more and more from reality that there would be some attempt to reconcile to reality. But all we see are Momma bear models that go from being a little 'too hot' to a lot 'too hot' which is rather good sign that climate science (well at least the climate science that gets funded and published) is biased, inert, and in one or more fundamental ways just plain wrong.  Just like all us evil climate deniers have been saying ever since we shifted from denying the Holocaust and bashing gays at our racist Tea Party Bacchanalias.

So once again, all together:  How do you know what you know?

Now, where are all those gay, black climate scientists for us to bash?