The Weather and Climate Change

[Garden Carpet]

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change-News-UK-TimesOnline

[James_Owen]

You know, it doesn't breed confidence in his arguments when he advertises his book at the end of the article, more or less saying it's the one place you might find the real truth about Global Warming.

Also, it's always quite fatuous when rants about how the Greenhouse Effect is nonsense always seize upon recent regional cooling, despite the overall trend suggesting a warming climate. Such anamolies are predicted by the Global Warming hypothesis as weather systems readjust to atmospheric changes. Indeed, in the long term certain regions of the world that were warmed by previous climatic mechanisms are likely to cool down even as the rest starts to cook.
That's something that this writer, this clarion for the naked truth, doesn't seem eager to mention. I wonder why that might be?