by Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon
The human race has prospered by relying on forecasts that the seasons will follow their usual course, while knowing they will sometimes be better or worse. Are things different now?
For the fifth time now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims they are. The difference, the IPCC asserts, is increased human emissions of carbon dioxide: a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas that is a byproduct of growing prosperity. It is also a product of all animal respiration and is also essential for most life on Earth, yet in total it makes up only 0.0004 of the atmosphere.
The IPCC assumes that the relatively small human contribution of this gas to the atmosphere will cause global warming, and insist that the warming will be dangerous.
Other scientists contest the IPCC assumptions, on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.
The computer models that the authors of the IPCC reports rely on are complicated representations of the assumption that human carbon dioxide emissions are now the primary factor driving climate change and will substantially overheat the Earth. The models include many assumptions that mainstream scientists question.
The modelers have correctly stated that they produce scenarios, not forecasts. Scenarios are stories constructed from a collection of assumptions. Well-constructed scenarios can be very convincing, in the same way that a well-crafted book or film can be.
The IPCC and its supporters promote these scary scenarios as if they were forecasts. However, scenarios are neither forecasts nor the product of a validated forecasting method.
The IPCC modelers were apparently unaware of decades of forecasting research. Our audit of the procedures used to create their apocalyptic scenarios found that they violated 72 of 89 relevant scientific forecasting principles. Would you go ahead with your flight if you overheard two of the ground crew discussing how the pilot had skipped 80 percent of the pre-flight safety checklist?
Thirty-nine forecasting experts from many disciplines from around the world developed the forecasting principles from published experimental research. A further 123 forecasting experts reviewed the work. The principles were published in 2001 and they are freely available on the Internet to help forecasters produce the best forecasts they can and to help forecast users determine the validity of forecasts. These principles are the only published set of evidence-based standards for forecasting.
Global warming alarmists nevertheless claim that the “nearly all” climate scientists believe dangerous global warming will occur. This is a strange claim, in view of the fact more than 30,000 American scientists signed the Oregon Petition, stating that there is no basis for dangerous manmade global warming forecasts, and “no convincing evidence” that carbon dioxide is dangerously warming the planet or disrupting its climate.
Most importantly, computer models and scenarios are not evidence—and validation does not consist of adding up votes. Such an approach can only be detrimental to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Validation requires comparing predictions to actual observations, and the IPCC models have failed in that regard.
Given the expensive policies proposed and implemented in the name of preventing dangerous manmade global warming, we are astonished that there is only one published peer-reviewed paper that claims to provide scientific forecasts of long-range global mean temperatures. The paper is our own 2009 article in the International Journal of Forecasting.
Our paper examined the state of knowledge and available empirical (that is, actually measured) data, in order to select appropriate evidence-based procedures for long-range forecasting of global mean temperatures. Given the complexity and uncertainty of the situation, we concluded that the “no-trend” model is the proper method to use. The conclusion is based on a substantial body of research that found complex models do not work well in complex and uncertain situations. This finding might be puzzling to people who are unfamiliar with the research on forecasting.
We tested the no-trend model, using the same data that the IPCC uses. To do this, we produced annual forecasts from one to 100 years ahead, starting from 1851 and stepping forward year-by-year until 1975, the year before the current warming alarm was raised. (This is also the year when Newsweek and other magazines reported that scientists were “almost unanimous” that Earth faced a new period of global cooling.) We conducted the same analysis for the IPCC scenario of temperatures increasing at a rate of 0.03 degrees Celsius (0.05 degrees Fahrenheit) per year in response to increasing human carbon dioxide emissions.
This procedure yielded 7,550 forecasts for each method. The findings?
Overall, the no-trend forecast error was one-seventh the error of the IPCC scenario’s projection. They were as accurate as or more accurate than the IPCC temperatures for all forecast horizons. Most important, the relative accuracy of the no-trend forecasts increased for longer horizons. For example, the no-trend forecast error was one-twelfth that of the IPCC temperature scenarios for forecasts 91 to 100 years ahead.
Our research in progress scrutinizes more forecasting methods, uses more and better data, and extends our validation tests. The findings strengthen the conclusion that there are no scientific forecasts that predict dangerous global warming.
Is it surprising that the government would support an alarm lacking scientific support? Not really. In our study of situations that are analogous to the current alarm over scenarios of global warming, we identified 26 earlier movements based on scenarios of manmade disaster, including the global cooling alarm in the 1960s to 1970s. None of them were based on scientific forecasts. And yet, governments imposed costly policies in response to 23 of them. In no case did the forecast of major harm come true.
There is no support from scientific forecasting for an upward trend in temperatures, or a downward trend. Without support from scientific forecasts, the global warming alarm is baseless and should be ignored.
Government programs, subsidies, taxes and regulations proposed as responses to the global warming alarm result in misallocations of valuable resources. They lead to inflated energy prices, declining international competitiveness, disappearing industries and jobs, and threats to health and welfare.
Humanity can do better with the old, simple, tried-and-true no-trend climate forecasting model. This traditional method is also consistent with scientific forecasting principles.
_____________
Dr. Kesten C. Green is with the University of South Australia in Adelaide and is director of the major website on forecasting methods, forecastingprinciples.com, and has published twelve peer-reviewed articles on forecasting.Professor J. Scott Armstrong teaches at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and is a founder of the two major journals on forecasting methods, editor of the Principles of Forecasting handbook, and the world’s most highly cited author on forecasting methods. Dr. Willie Soon of Salem, MA for the past 20 years has published extensively on solar and other factors that cause climate changes. Copies of the authors’ climate forecasting papers are available at www.PublicPolicyForecasting.com.
Seth:
It is strange that warmunists think anonymous lies are needed and are effective in refuting honest and open statements from people who chose to put their names to the statements.
I notice that you post your falsehoods at October 16, 2013 at 2:08 am from behind a shield of anonymity.
That anonymity is ironic when your post only consists of falsehoods concerning a list of names of people who have each been individually checked and who chose to spend the time, money and effort to provide a written reply and to mail it in response to a request for their agreement to a statement.
Richard
I did a silly thing the other day in a restaurant waiting for my order. On the table was a big glass bowl about 8″ wide and about 10″ tall with a 1″ circular squat candle in the middle.
I wondered how much radiation I would feel if I put my hand inside along the edge of the bowl It was very slightly warm. I then wondered how much convection there would be and held my hand over the top of the bowl in the centre and burnt my finger.
Seth says:
October 16, 2013 at 2:08 am
The Oregon Petition includes fictional names,…
Which ones? Be specific. The Petition folks have gone to great pains to remove any fictional or improper names.
The relatively simple, straight-forward form they use to add signees to the Petition remains on the website – http://www.petitionproject.org/instructions_for_signing_petition.php – and is available for all to see/use. I see absolutely nothing deceptive or misleading about the form.
From the Petition Project website:
“…There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Hmm,
doesn’t deny “global warming”
doesn’t deny the “greenhouse effect”,
doesn’t deny that CO2 is part of the GHE,
doesn’t deny that humans are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
Does not support “future catastrophism from atmospheric anthropogenic CO2” .
Seems like a pretty solid skeptical viewpoint.
michel says:
October 15, 2013 at 7:25 pm
“What worries me about this article is the reference to the analogical cases.”
Michel, don’t forget that the analogies were similarly hyped beyond the pale. It seems, brash and reckless to attack what have become “motherhood issues” and you are right about a limit to the uses and many other environmental no-nos. However, the complete ban of DDT and other insecticides may have resulted in millions of deaths by malaria and other insect-borne diseases (tsetse fly, yellow fever, etc.) that could have been prevented by judicious use of DDT. The use of insecticides actually cleared North America and most of Europe of malaria and yellow fever (it killed canal builders in Ontario in the early 19th Century and I believe it is still a hazard in Bulgaria and the “stans” of the former USSR) and could have basically eradicated malaria in Africa. Long term effects of its use: we live to be almost a hundred now! Africans: not many years ago 50% of the population didn’t live beyond 12 years old (don’t have latest statistics). Okay, tobacco is bad for your health – no caveats here, but we and our fellow creatures have evolved with smoke from forest fires, grass fires and cooking fires and the like and I’m sure a little bit is okay. It may be good for our health in modest amounts.
Hey, a lethal dose of milk will kill you. The things you mention are the hard won fruits of the same kind of anti-human folks that are trying to kill the economy and civilization and they will protect their territory at all costs. It is no stretch that if CO2 gets regulated broadly, it will become one of the motherhood issues, too and every school child will be worrying about it.
Some of the fake names that were in the petition:
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1998/Odd-Names-Added-to-Greenhouse-Plea/id-aec8beea85d7fe76fc9cc77b8392d79e
John Who says “The Petition folks have gone to great pains to remove any fictional or improper names.”
Which folks, and what methods? Be specific. I cannot find any published method of vetting the names.
Scientific American article on their vetting:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
Apart from the non-locatable, the dead, and the ones whose names had been added by someone else (or at least that had no memory of the petition themselves) there are many that would no longer sign the petition. Not very honest as a guide of current opinion.
The National Academy’s response to the accompanied paper being faked as peer reviewed and published by them:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
A paper in a highly regarded scientific journal would not be neutral to a lot of scientists. If you’re interested in scientific opinion, what is the point in trying to sway people with lies before asking their opinion? Doesn’t that pollute the whole process?
Seth:
In your post at October 16, 2013 at 5:32 am you ask
Whatever the truth of your assertions – n.b. there is none – it is certain that your irrelevant blather is polluting this thread.
If you are capable of understanding the issues discussed in the above essay – and your posts in this thread indicate you lack that capability – then please address those issues. Otherwise, please go away because you are being a disruptive nuisance.
Richard
A link to the Forcasting Principles discussed by the authors of this post can be found at this webpage:
http://www.publicpolicyforecasting.com/
Perhaps someone at WUWT can append the link directly to the post.
W^3
Nice easy to understand numbers in WIllie Soon’s post, but the warmophants only want to discuss the Oregon petition.
Says it all.
Unfortunately, our warmist friends NEVER want to really discuss numerical modeling of the climate, so I will ignore their comments in this post.
richardscourtney says: “Whatever the truth of your assertions – n.b. there is none – .”
Did you not follow my link to the National Academies Webpage about the petition?
Here it is again: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
I didn’t make that up. It is a response from the NAS about the petition.
So what do you mean that there is no truth to my assertions? Are you claiming that the NAS page has been hacked, and I have put the contents there myself?
The statement Mosher is referring to is directly out of the writeup: “Other scientists contest the IPCC assumptions, on the grounds that the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial—and that the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.” He is correct that the two part of the statement seem to be logically inconsistent. I am a skeptic, but have to agree that the two parts of this statement are not logically consistent. However, taking a poorly worded statement to represent the entire writeup is wrong. The rest of the discussion is quite clear what was meant. I could go into almost any paper and find a poorly worded part to use to refute the entire paper, and would be wrong to do so. You have to consider the entire paper. In Mosher’s case he should have simply stated the wording of a specific phrase was logically wrong, but not included the snark “skeptic logic”. The supporters of CAGW and even AGW have made so many errors or even deliberate misleading statements in published papers and summary representations to make the “skeptic logic” snark a real joke.
Seth:
Your post at October 16, 2013 at 6:22 am clearly proclaims that you did not read my post it pretends to be answering. I copy the salient points of my post to here.
If you are capable of understanding the issues discussed in the above essay then please address those issues. Otherwise, please go away because you are being a disruptive nuisance.
Richard
I see the warmunists are doing another variant of “playing the man” since they can’t play the ball. If you dislike the message, shoot the messenger. Of course it doesn’t change the facts presented in the message.
The folks who liked this article should also read Dr. Soon’s paper with Sallie Baliunas (not paywalled):
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
Might as well grab some popcorn and read the wiki article about the ensuing controversy as well. History will show that S&B 2003 could use some tweaks in the language to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation (you should decide on your own whether it was willfull misinterpretation, especially the quotes from Michael Mann), but readers will perhaps be left wondering why these two academics suffered the equivalent of tarring and feathering for this work.
Seth says:
October 16, 2013 at 5:32 am
Some of the fake names that were in the petition:
Do you even realize how foolish you are?
You first said:
“Seth says:
October 16, 2013 at 2:08 am
The Oregon Petition includes fictional names,..”
and now you admit that they are not there now. You’ve shown to us all that you were wrong.
Makes my job easier. 🙂
Perhaps with further investigation by you, you will continue to prove yourself wrong regarding this subject matter.
Just to clarify, from the Petition Project website:
“Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.
In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.”
Clearly Seth, you are one of the people with a weak mind who, rather than check the source, would rather simply repeat what other people say. You are part of the primary demographic that the Alarmist’s target and they clearly have been successful with their effort with you.
Oh, for grins, I checked out Seth’s NAS link (above).
It is dated 1998 and references 1991 and 1992 papers. I would submit that we’ve come a long way, baby, since then. Heck, since 1998, we haven’t even had any statistically significant “global warming” which should be enough to make any reasonable person question those old assertions.
Even so, from the NAS link:
“The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”
They didn’t say the petition does not reflect the opinions/conclusions of the NAS membership, since they hadn’t polled the membership (and maybe still haven’t?).
They further state:
“In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). ”
Gee, Alarmist/Warmist go bonkers when someone other than what they consider a bona-fide “climate scientist” says anything that does not support their agenda, but here, they have no problem when engineers and medical folks agree with them!
Is it any wonder that it is so difficult to have rational, intelligent with a true Alarmist/Warmist believer?
Uh, “rational, intelligent conversations”.
(See my previous post, above.)
Spell check seems to work but grammar checker, not so much. 🙂
Steven Mosher – If you don’t mind, could you do your drive by trolling elsewhere? Preferably on one of those less factual and less relevant sites?
Much appreciated!
Scientia weeps.
(The Willie Soon that Robert Park mentions as being part of this embarrassing episode is the very same one who has attached his name to this current post.)
You mean the Willie Soon that is a Harvard astrophysicist and geoscientist? Or some other Willie Soon?
Jeez, come on you guys, I’m trying to win an entire game of logical fallacy bingo: (http://lifesnow.com/bingo/) in one post, and the best I can get is Texas Sharpshooter, Appeal to Consequences, Argument Ad Populum, Factually Inaccurate (basically free), Appeal to Fear, Straw Man, Argument from Authority, Cherry Picking. That might win on some cards, but not mine, so please, try to throw a few more fallacies in.
In the meantime, if you’re going to argue from authority or argue ad hominem, at least get your facts right.
FWIW, Soon has actual peer reviewed physics-based papers in climate science. Park, OTOH, does not — in fact, I can’t see much evidence that Park has ever published an actual physics paper after he received his Ph.D., at least on his wikipedia page. He can best be described as being a “political physicist”, tackling what is, in his view, pseudoscience. Which means that he has as much credibility criticizing any sort of paper or computation in climate science as I do. Less, actually — I’ve got a fair number of peer reviewed papers in several areas of physics, including some that at least are relevant to climate science, and have spent several years now educating myself in climate physics. And appealing to this is just as much a fallacy as anything else — whether Park or Soon or I or anyone else is correct or incorrect in any assertion is not reliably predicted by ad hominem attacks on our person or claims that we are or are not competent physicists (or physicists at all!).
I’ve got an idea. Instead of attacking the authors of the paper described above, why not actually read the paper and attack its content? Are you asserting that the claims of GCMs do satisfy the criteria of forecasts? Are you claiming that GCMs do actually do a better job of hindcasting or projectively forecasting the last 100+ years of the climate than Soon’s null model (whatever it is)? If so, by all means present us with evidence to that effect.
Personally, I rather think its content will stand up to scrutiny, simply because it is straightforward to fit some extremely simple models to HADCRUT4 that strongly suggest that the climate trend hasn’t signficantly altered over the last 170 years. Yes, the models are numerology, but in the end, so are the GCMs! They are chock full of assumptions and adjustable parameters, many of them set arbitrarily and with values that vary from model to model by as much as a factor of 3.
And they don’t actually work, which is what the current furor is all about. The “leaked” version of AR5 openly acknowledged that obvious fact; the “released” version retracted that obvious fact and emphasizes the exact opposite — how trustworthy their predictions are for 30 or 40 years from now even though they are already failing in a mere 20. It has already been pointed out on WUWT that they fail, with a lot of detail concerning the modes of failure, to describe the 100+ year e.g. HADCRUT4 record, or SSTs, or many other things.
I’m going to ask you one simple question and would appreciate at entirely honest answer. If it were not for the politics of climate science, would you look at figure 1.4 in AR5 SPM and conclude that all of those GCMs are working correctly? I don’t. And that’s before I take into account that 1.4 contains the projective forecast of one averaged quantity — GASTA — against one quantity — time — where “climate” is at least what, five or ten dimensional even in its simplest presentation. That’s before I even know what the graph is portraying, really. Before I take into account my additional knowledge — such as the fact that the actual mean temperatures produced by the models differ by some 2-3 C and are subtracted away to present only “the anomaly” in an effort to conceal how very far away the models are from reality (which is, BTW, a chapter straight out of How to Lie with Statistics, although I’m sure it is well-intentioned).
Instead of defending AR5’s SPM, perhaps you might ask yourself why the final report removed what appears to me to have been a very reasonable statement of honest scientific doubt, a statement that if anything underemphasized the gravity of the problem facing the GCMs. You might also ask yourself this:
Just how long does the climate have to continue on its current neutral to descending track before you come to question not just “the average prediction of many independent GCMs” but specific GCMs that fail to come anywhere close to this track? What will it take for the data to falsify the models (one at a time, of course) in your own mind? Have any models failed to make that cut already?
Bear in mind that I fully understand how, and why, CO_2 increases can reasonably be expected to increase global temperatures — by around 1 C (a fair chunk of which has already been realized) at 600 ppm. Even that, however, is based on IMO on oversimplified estimations — it is a “Fermi estimate” of a quantity that is appallingly difficult to actually compute, nothing more. As such, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were as much as 2 C, or as little as 0 C, and wouldn’t be surprised much if it went a degree more than that either way — this is an linearized estimate of the shift in the dynamic equilibrium of a highly nonlinear system with a demonstrated capacity for natural variation every bit as large or larger than this estimate, and with complex feedbacks that keep the system remarkably stable while at the same time permitting its current/local equilibrium to wander all over the place within a 1-2 C range — and this is NOT referring to GASTA (whatever that quantity really is) this is referring to the actual absolute GAST, and neglects the much LARGER local/regional variations of LST, SST, LTT, rainfall and drought patterns, variations in the large scale decadal oscillations and Hadley circulation, albedo, and so on.
What I find surprising is that anybody has managed to convince themselves that we can predict the climate at all yet, with or without CO_2 variation. We cannot even predict the predictors of climate, many of the variables that might contribute to our constantly shifting climate. We do not yet reliably know the details of the climate autocorrelation, since the climate has clearly visible secular variation across the entire time period over which we have halfway decent data (even being remarkably generous and including HADCRUT4’s GASTA all the way back to 1843 or whatever). If this were any other problem in physics with similar complexity, nobody would be announcing success, and nobody would be betting a trillion dollars and millions of lives on the predictions of the not-yet-successful models.
Don’t you agree?
rgb
tallbloke says:
Here is the sum total of all the supposed scientific content in their piece:
So, what they are saying is that they tested whether the rate of temperature increase has been 0.03 C per year since 1851 and found that it hasn’t been: In fact, it was closer to zero then to 0.03 C per year. Would anybody have told them otherwise? The IPCC notes that the temperature rise has been something like 0.8 C over 160 years, which gives a rise of 0.005 C per year. Is it some sort of shock that 0.005 is closer to 0 than it is to 0.03?
It is like predicting the future path of a ball sitting on top of a tall building after you kick it off the building using the fact that it has sat stationary on top of the building up to that time…Therefore, your prediction would be that the height wouldn’t change with time.
This is not science. It is just sophistry. To test the IPCC predictions, they would have to take into account the forcings on the system, just like to test the prediction that the ball would fall vs the prediction that it would stay at the same height, I have to take into account the fact that the forces balance when it is sitting on top of the building but not once it is kicked off.
The fact that they even went through and wrote a paper about this shows that their real motivation had nothing to do with science and everything to do with deception. (I just went to look at their paper to see if it is really as silly as they described it, hoping that perhaps they had not described their work well here…but, no, their description of what they did is accurate.)
rgbatduke says:
Are you serious? From that Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park
Here is just one example of a physics paper: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i22/p1465_1 I chose that one in particular just for personal reasons. (The first author was my undergraduate advisor.) And, you don’t generally get made a fellow of those various societies without doing some highly-regarded scientific work.
In addition, Park went on to become the director of public information at the Washington office of the American Physical Society. And, in his work in that regard, he was noted for defending science against all sorts of attacks that he perceived on it, without regard to political ideology. He made as much fun of Sen Tom Harkin’s push for an NIH Office of Alternative Medicine as of the abuses of science by Willie Soon and company.
Yes…They do if you look at the correct thing, which is how the climate system responds to forcings. If you look at the wrong thing, like whether the temperature has been rising 0.03 C per year irregardless of the forcings, then of course the null model will work better…but that’s not the relevant point!
tallbloke says:
Here is the sum total of all the supposed scientific content in their piece:
So, what they are saying is that they tested whether the rate of temperature increase has been 0.03 C per year since 1851 and found that it hasn’t been: In fact, it was closer to zero then to 0.03 C per year. Would anybody have told them otherwise? The IPCC notes that the temperature rise has been something like 0.8 C over 160 years, which gives a rise of 0.005 C per year. Is it some sort of shock that 0.005 is closer to 0 than it is to 0.03?
It is like predicting the future path of a ball sitting on top of a tall building after you kick it off the building using the fact that it has sat stationary on top of the building up to that time…Therefore, your prediction would be that the height wouldn’t change with time.
This is not science. To test the IPCC predictions, they would have to take into account the forcings on the system, just like to test the prediction that the ball would fall vs the prediction that it would stay at the same height, I have to take into account the fact that the forces balance when it is sitting on top of the building but not once it is kicked off.
The fact that they even went through and wrote a paper about this shows that their real motivation had nothing to do with science and everything to do with just trying to dupe people. (I just went to look at their paper to see if it is really as silly as they described it, hoping that perhaps they had not described their work well here…but, no, their description of what they did is accurate.)
RGB, well said.
How exactly would the models look if they included temps rather than only the anomaly? I find that an excellent point and one many haven’t considered, myself for one, but I’m not a scientist or even close.
There goes joel shore with his “political ideology” nonsense again.
Everything is political ideology to an ideologue like joel shore.
But this is a science site. And so far, there is no measurable, testable scientific evidence directly linking human CO2 emissions to global warming. There is only a relatively short time, from around 1980 – 1997, when CO2 and temperature appeared correlated. But that was a spurious correlation, as 1997 – 1013 shows. So AGW is still only an unproven conjecture.
joelshore argues politics because the science doesn’t support his belief system.
Tallbloke points out: …Joel, rather than engaging in your usual warmist smear tactics…”
Yes. Dr Soon has been repeatedly smeared by joel shore and his ilk. Really despicable. Those ad hominem attacks are all that the alarmist crowd has for an argument. They have certainly lost the scientific debate.