Registered On: December 24, 2013
Oh Lord, here we go again. You lot just can’t leave it alone can you. Then you have the nerve to criticise me?!
As for “Who’s attacking” me, NI, are you smoking something? Just look at Heath’s comment for starters.
BRI, you say: “The one problem for you, of course, is that recorded temperatures are more akin to what climatologists have said, not the downplayers and deniers.”
Are they really, BRI? For starters what most people don’t understand is that climate science doesn’t use raw temperatures, but anomalies. In simple terms this means a departure against a reference value or long-term average. This in itself leads to all sorts of issues from a statistical perspective. It also means that the actual temperature “increase” is miniscule.
Another problem is that there’s no such thing as a “global temperature”. What climate ‘scientists’ use is a construct, which grossly oversimplifies climate reality. Climate ‘scientists’ claim that warming is consistent across the globe but this is far from the case. Many regions have seen no warming at all.
Another problem is the dataset used. Different datasets give different results. Data is supposedly “corrected” to take account of all manner of things from changes in meteorological sites to the areas covered by sites in remote regions, some of which are vast.
I could go on listing problems — there are a huge number. The fact is that for every graph you show me claiming the models are “accurate” I could show you one claiming they’re not; and, no, these are not from bloggers but from scientists, including climate scientists.
However, one of the biggest issues — and this brings us back to the fundamental problem that I’ve explained over computer models predicting the future — is the accuracy and errors involved with the models and actual temperature records themselves. Results shown by models are often smaller than the errors involved in the original measurements. That isn’t science. It’s nonsense.
A massive issue here is that when it comes to publishing papers, academic journals don’t want to publish papers that reveal “nothing happening here”, despite the fact that “nothing happening” is every bit as important.
As with everything to do with climate ‘science’, problems and issues are swept under the carpet. The simple fact is that climate is incredibly complex and very messy. None of that would matter if all climate scientists admitted this, but they don’t. People want plain and simple answers, which in reality don’t exist.