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.
- Errors in Science (socyberty.com)
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Under the radar, and un-noticed by many climate scientists, there was a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), commissioned by the US Government, regarding climate change. Here is the remit under which they were supposed to operate:
Specifically, our charge was
1. To identify the principal premises on which our current understanding of the question [of the climate effects of CO2] is based,
2. To assess quantitatively the adequacy and uncertainty of our knowledge of these factors and processes, and
3. To summarize in concise and objective terms our best present understanding of the carbon dioxide/climate issue for the benefit of policymakers.
Now, that all sounds quite reasonable. In fact, if we knew the answers to those questions, we’d be a long ways ahead of where we are now.
View original post 2,122 more words