They even describe the field of “decadal climate prediction” as “embryonic.” We should wreck our economy and deny poor people affordable/reliable electricity for that?
Read the commentary in Nature.
They even describe the field of “decadal climate prediction” as “embryonic.” We should wreck our economy and deny poor people affordable/reliable electricity for that?
Read the commentary in Nature.
Astonishing! Do these guys have no shame? Illuminating Schmidt’s comments on the original paper too about ego and funding protection! If the models don’t predict it on the way “up” how can they be sure the policies will work on the way down!
When t he data and the model disagree, the model is not right.
I would like to tell you of my latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
My website is
Thank you.
Tim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com
Debate between Dr Tim Ball and Elizabeth May
Scroll down to Ian Jessop part 1
http://www.cfax1070.com/Podcasts
Hey, some warmists have finally admitted the science isn’t really settled.
It’s a start.
Here’s a noteworthy statement in the report:
“Although satellite TLT datasets also have important uncertainties, they corroborate the slowdown of GMST increase and provide independent evidence that the slowdown is a real phenomenon. “
Wait, our Sun is involved? Was that not supposed to be NO factor in “Global Warming?” I remember commenting on such a statement that it was patently absurd as otherwise Earth would be at most two degrees above absolute zero. Also the decadal variations were discounted for years. And just how did volcanic activity (Mount Pintabo twenty years later) suddenly rise to notice? And best of all, only going to look at 1900 on.
Odd then that the satellites show much uncertainty; I guess the radiosonde balloons must do the same, then?
And, tadchem, where have you been these past few years – when the models and data disagree, you change the data. Standard practice now, I think you will find.
This an attempt to pre-empt the coming collapse of their climate models(but now more of the public will realize it) and to pre-empt much of the real science and climate sleuthing being done by Tim Ball, Judith Curry and others from taking credit for saying “We told you and the rest of the world”. Before they were saying since the “consensus” is on their side, only they could conduct credible skeptical science( ie debunk themselves) and anyone else trying to debunk their “science” was merely in the pay of Big CO2.