What a wonderful post! The conclusions by Willis are simply, as I read them, that the science of AGW, whatever name they use, is not only NOT SETTLED, it is practically NON EXISTENT. The scientists are unable to discuss any real scientific factors.

Please read it yourself and tell me if you think I am wrong, or if Willis is inaccurate.

[I include the related article “Errors in Science” more for fun because it is hardly relevant. In those instances it was lack of data, here it is deliberate misuse of data].

A ‘telling extract’ from all the waffle from the NAS panel, with Willis’ accurate conclusions.

At present, we cannot simulate accurately the details of regional climate and thus cannot predict the locations and intensities of regional climate changes with confidence. This situation may be expected to improve gradually as greater scientific understanding is acquired and faster computers are built.

So there you have it, folks. The climate sensitivity is 3°C per doubling of CO2, with an error of about ± 1.5°C. Net feedback is positive, although we don’t understand the clouds. The models are not yet able to simulate regional climates. No surprises in any of that. It’s just what you’d expect a NAS panel to say.

And the 3degC is really only an assumption that they are unable to quantify scientifically. 

Related articles

• Errors in Science (socyberty.com)