I went looking for a better model, and found the relationship between sunspots and global temperatures extremely similar. Variations are caused by cloud cover. A very informative model.
Then there is the "oh crap how much money did we waste funding climate research" model:
The forecasting model we chose was the so-called “naïve” model. The naïve model assumes that things will remain the same. It is such a simple model that people are generally not aware of its power. In contrast to the IPCC’s central forecast that global mean temperatures will rise by 3˚C over a century, our naïve model simply forecasts that temperatures next year and for each of 100 years into the future would remain the same as the last years’.
Beats the IPCC's model by how much?
Over all the forecasts, the IPCC error was 7.7 times larger than the error from the naïve model.
While the superiority of the naïve model was modest for one- to ten-year-ahead forecasts (where the IPCC error was 1.5 times larger), its superiority was enormous for the 91- to 100-year-ahead forecasts, where the IPCC error was 12.6 times larger.
But of course, they just keep repeating the lie, and aggravating the lie by saying we all might drown due to rising sea levels, and similar nonsense. Just like they did when I was TWELVE! You think I would have noticed the liquid in my lungs by now.