X-Message-Number: 30521
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Global warming is just hot air :-)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:08:08 +0100
References: <>


IPCC 2001 Chapter 8 discusses model evaluation. Armstrong & Green  
(2007) evaluated the forecasting skill of the IPCC models and said "We  
have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support  
global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more  
credence than saying that it will get colder." this paper was briefly  
discussed on CA.


Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process
John Mitchell, Julia Slingo, David S. Lee, Jason Lowe & Vicky Pope
   CLIMATE CHANGE Response to Carter et al.', World Economics, 8 (1):  
221 228.

One key question to be considered is what would have been the  
consequence of
IPCC, 2007 accepting that the  hockey stick  and other reconstructions  
that cannot
simulate the instrument record from 1850 to 2005 were not  
scientifically reliable.
Given their previous prominence, the IPCC would have to withdraw the  
that flow from them and could only claim, as did NRC, 2006 on page 3  
of its report,
that it is  plausible  that it is now warmer than a thousand years  
ago. Against that
many and probably most qualified scientists would say that there is at  
least equally
plausible evidence that it is not. The effect of such a conclusion on  
modelling studies
would be to undermine the credibility of the more alarming  
predictions. Unless a
warming of significantly more than 1 C can be shown to be likely over  
the next
century it would be impossible to maintain public and political  
support for the massive
costs that the current burgeoning  global warming industry  imposes.  
The IPCC and
the  hockey team  in particular appear to recognise this, and are  
desperate to shore up
the shaky foundations of the science and deny the many uncertainties,  
as these
comments on the final SPM draft suggest.

David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30521