A few random comments, 3 November 2006.
And for those who may query my right to make scientific comments in this area may I say,
So here goes:
The war is hotting up, as more and more papers questioning the scaremongering forecasts are published, including many from climate scientists across the world questioning the reliability of data input to the much-quoted climate models.
What has average temperature to do with it?
See GISS [Goddard institute for Space Studies (NASA)]
And, then NASA has recently admitted to a mistake in the corrections applied to its US temperature records at the beginning of the millenium (the Y2K error):
... to begin with, the NASA temperature screw-up is not particularly relevant or even significant news in climate circles -- there is no agreement on exactly what we are trying to measure or how to go about it, far less precisely what the global mean surface temperature actually is (just see Hansen's Q&A). It is only because media and the people they proselytize have unreasonable expectation regarding pronouncements of temperature and trend that this acquires any significance. Let's be explicit -- the margin of error in our attempts to derive the global mean temperature is larger than the estimate of all net warming since the Industrial Revolution (we think it exists but we cannot quantify it, nor determine causation because we have an inadequate understanding of the system). Regarding estimates of future warming, these are all guesses and of limited value (those yielding catastrophic warming are rubbish relying on massive and imaginary feedbacks -- they exist only in virtual worlds and fevered imaginations). Guesstimates of 'tipping points' and Greenland meltdown are similarly divorced from reality, based as they are on the absurd output of 'climate models' (this is not data and must not be treated as such) and fly in the face of history and empirical measures. All this nonsense is predicated on physically impossible response to trivial increase in a trace gas -- the real world demonstrates that the magical multipliers do not exist as panic-peddlers postulate, so fuggedaboudit. (Junk Science
And see the comment in this week's Economist - Gambling on tomorrow: Modelling the Earth's climate mathematically is hard already. Now a new difficulty is emerging.
Global Warming Generally
Misuse of Statistics
© Copyright E.C. ("Paddy") Apling, November 2006, last updated 22nd August, 2007.
Ignore this Climate of Fear [Letters to the Eastern Daily Press]
Food Information index
Norfolk Villages index
Paddy's home page