Actually he doesn't "support what the science is saying", he tends to go a bit further then the mainstream.
And again you either support him, in which case engaging his points is relevant not some "refuge" for "scoundrels" or you don't, in which case ok we can drop alarmists who go as far as him or further from the discussion.
"Yes Virginia, the Models Have Overpredicted Warming
Uh, no
Depends on the data set, the adjustments, and the time period your considering. "
The start of the industrial age thru today.
That's no a relevant period. No such models existed until well after the industrial age started. The current models are even newer. To actual predict something the model has to exist before the event it predicts. Anyone with sufficient knowledge of the modeling techniques and access to temperature records can create models that predict the past. That doesn't say much (other than that if they can't even predict the past, there isn't much reason to consider them at all).
The models don't try for 10 or 20 years; they go out to 2100.
Then you can tell me about the accuracy of the models predictions in 2100, or at least well along the way to 2100, but you can't say they have been accurate until much longer then 10 to 20 years after they were created. (And that assumes they where static, since the models change much more frequently then every 10 years, in a sense you could never say they have been established as accurate if they aren't trying for 10 or 20 years but rather much longer.)
Data show no recent slowdown in global warming
Again, that depends on which set of data, which adjustments, and what time frame you are using. Neither since the "start of the industrial age", nor "out to 2100" is relevant to the question. |
