People like Seth Borenstein were excited to link to this paper yesterday.

Study: You can pretty much blame human-caused climate change for 3/4 of ultra hot days; http://t.co/LbkJg1Body pic.twitter.com/3pYaD5OXq0

— seth borenstein (@borenbears) April 27, 2015

“This new study helps get the actual probability or odds of human influence,” said University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck, who wasn’t part of the research. “This is key: If you don’t like hot temperature extremes that we’re getting, you now know how you can reduce the odds of such events by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Lead author Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich, a Swiss university, and colleague Reto Knutti examined just the hottest of hot days, the hottest one-tenth of one percent. Using 25 different computer models. Fischer and Knutti simulated a world without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and found those hot days happened once every three years.

Then they calculated how many times they happen with the current level of heat-trapping gases and the number increases to four days. So three of the four are human caused, the team said.

This is crap science, because it’s based on crap models, that have been failing.

Interestingly, even Kevin Trenberth agrees with me:

“The paper is interesting and has some results that may be reasonably OK,” he said. “However, the paper is based almost entirely on models with little or no validation or relations to the real world. None of the models do precipitation realistically, and some are quite bad.”

You don’t say. Garbage in, garbage out.

A new investigation into how much it’s been “adjusted.”

I know you’ll be as shocked as I am to learn that social media has failed to bridge the gap. Actually, though, they buried the lede:

…tweeters with climate sceptic views are no more likely to post offensive comments than those who accept the basics of climate science.

Sceptics have long been accused of trolling, but Williams said the study indicated their minority status meant they were just more likely to interact with users they disagreed with.

“We found a lot of negativity, but when you crunch the numbers you find out they are no more likely to be negative than anyone else,” he said.

“There is a popular perception that sceptics must be irrational or unreasonable but this study doesn’t support that at all.”

You don’t say.