Where the output of computer software is held in higher regard than observational data, where marketing spin is more important than fact and evidence, and where a trenchant defence of the notion of man-made global warming is seen as paramount… Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Wow, the article is a great summary!
“It ignored recognised natural climate forces and declared that recent variations in climate were attributable to human activity.”
Utter piffle. Of course natural forces are taken into consideration. Read the IPCC report.
SJT wrote:
“Utter piffle. Of course natural forces are taken into consideration. Read the IPCC report.”
I have NOT read any of the IPCC reports. Have you actually read and understood the most recent one from cover to cover? And I don’t just mean the summary for policymakers (and for the Great Unwashed). If not, how can you be so confident that natural forces were really taken into consideration?
To filk an old saying, climate change scientists were created in order to make economists look good. Here’s what Psychic Larry’s crap detector says.
Climate Change is not well understood. In their heart of hearts, many of the CC modelers know this. Rather than making honest caveats, they simply invent fake numbers for the impacts of putative CC drivers, including natural climate forces, taking care that CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases usually come out as the 800-pound gorilla of CC for the last several decades. If a climate model does NOT show GGs as the control variable, then they revise their guestimates until it does.
This is not real science; it’s masturbating with silicon, in order to arrive at a foregone conclusion. This is why the IPCC models have essentially zero predictive–i.e. scientific–value. I don’t see how anyone with more than half a brain can take the IPCC’s glorified Cargo Cult argument seriously.