Two important issues here.
We see a credible climate scientist who participates in the IPCC circus making some critical remarks about the lack of scientific integrity in this particular issue of the published surface temperature averages, (strangely accepted as authentic), showing a significant current failure to follow the IPCC published trend projections.
What can be said? For anyone to suggest the “science is settled” is clearly nonsense. Absolutely no evidence to support that, heaps of evidence to support otherwise.
Regarding the actual departure of the real temperature from the projected graph – besides scientists arguing about it, what does it mean technically? Firstly an inability of the computer models, as created by scientists, to accurately forecast future temperatures. Perhaps, just perhaps, the longer future term trends will make this difference less significant than it seems. The point is that nothing in the computer modelling accounts for it, and there are other similar omissions anyway.
What we might be seeing is an unforeseen natural climate change that will prove IPCC projections, and more importantly, its political ambitions of supporting new government strategies becoming universally known as exactly that, without any scientific basis at all!
The author’s conclusion –
“So, this whole thing is a side-show and as such depressing.”-Peter Thorne”
The indefatigable Barry Woods has left this comment over on Lewandowsky’s “Shaping Tomorrow’s World” blog on “seepage”. It features IPCC lead author Professor Peter Thorne, who is none too happy about Lewandowsky’s latest “seepage” paper and pulls no punches in his pushback.
Barry Woods at 05:32 AM on 17 May, 2015
Professor Peter Thorne (IPCC lead author) commenting on an article about all this in the Guardian:
“As a contributor to the hiatus box in IPCC AR5 and an author and reviewer of several relevant papers frankly this whole thing is depressing and shows extreme naivety as to what constitutes the scientific process and the accrual and acceptance of scientific knowledge. Indeed the only relevant part is the final sentence. That as climate scientists we have to develop thick skins.
To maintain that as scientists we should not investigate the pause / hiatus / slowdown (there I used…
View original post 177 more words