Registered On: December 24, 2013
“As I have been through many times, and won’t be doing again, we don’t need computer models to see that the effects from climate change are occurring and have occurred in recent recorded history. ”
And as I’ve been through many times, BRI, what neither you nor anyone else on the planet can do — no matter what their scientific credentials are — is say what the magnitude of these effects from man-made greenhouse gases actually are. The ONLY evidence that exists for this is based on computer models. You and anyone else can talk until they’re blue in the face but that is an indisputable, 100% fact; and just to be totally clear about this — for the nth time — I am not talking about the existence of man-made climate change, which nobody is denying, but the size of its impact.
As for how the climate scientists are “so dramatically wrong”, there are plenty of climate scientists who disagree very strongly with the worst-case scenarios continuously pumped out by the IPCC. What you will find, however, is that those who have dared ‘put their heads above the parapet’ over this have been treated appallingly and in many cases forced to resign their posts or even dismissed for daring to speak out. The two most high profile of these are Judith Curry and Peter Ridd, but there are many others.
Anyone who believes that academics are immune to politics or ‘marketing their expertise’ to gain funding is totally and utterly naive. They’re every bit as bad if not worse than any other profession.
So, BRI, or, indeed, anyone out there, let me ask one very simple question, which given all the ‘evidence’ should be VERY simple and easy to answer: what is the confidence level of the predictions being made about the SIZE of the impact of man-made global warming? Anyone who understands even the most basic of scientific analysis will know and understand that confidence intervals should ALWAYS be quoted when ANY scientific prediction is made.
I look forward very much indeed to getting the answer.