Suggest you read the report itself. Or, search on the phrase "climate change models" within the reports.

The facts speak for themselves.

Mike

Citation, D. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES “On the credibility of climate predictions” Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (2008).

Here is the abstract in English: "Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported."

My comments are only "irrelevant" if one hasn't read the report and its predictions. I have read the report.

If you go to pages 7 and 8 of the Kansas study you'll see the data stops at the year 2000 and the "forecasts" pertain to changes from the values observed in 2000. So, climate conditions from 2001 to 2008 are very much relevant as a measure of the accuracy of the trends of the predictions contained in the report. So far, they couldn't be more wrong as I said in my original post. This is not surprising as I doubt you would find any meteorologists on either side of the GW debate that believe the climate models have any predictive skill at level of an individual state.

By the way, for anyone else reading this thread:

"The study released Wednesday by the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research, analyzed the costs of global warming on several states and was paid for in part by the Environmental Defense Fund." (from The Kansas City Star)

Mike

ignoratio elenchi n. A logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but has nothing to do with the proposition it purports to prove. Also known as "irrelevant conclusion". [Lat. ignorance of refutation.]

Here in Kansas (mentioned above) we just had a bin-buster 2008 wheat harvest and the corn, beans and milo look great at this point. Since 1990 (the year the Sierra Club testified that "global warming" began in Wichita), we have had fewer 100° days, fewer 0° days, and more consistent rainfall than in the pre-global warming era. The GW prophets of doom couldn't have been more wrong.

In fact, the climate models are not doing too well on worldwide climate predictions: http://climatesci.org/2008/05/21/can-the-ipcc-model-projections-of-global-warming-be-evaluated-from-just-several-years-of-data/ .

Mike