Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm not convinced there are trillions in profits in alternative energies. There isn't enough demand without government support and saving the planet is not a very high priority for most households. Without massive government support and lots of international cooperation there isn't going to be much progress in relation to what needs to be done.From 1901 to 1904 there was a publication being sold called "Earth not a Globe Review" proclaiming the earth is really flat. For some people, no amount of scientific evidence is enough. Regardless of the number of Science Academies and Scientific Societies that endorse a theory, there will always be dissenters. This is particularly the case when there are strong economic or religious concerns.
Here we agree. Of course you are ignoring the elephant in the room which is how much will the oil companies garner by keeping things as they are? Hundreds of billions of dollars.
How much will the AGW pushers garner if they get their way? TRILLIONS!
So who has the most to gain by the fraud proceeding? Yup, the fraudsters.
How will the fraud help the politicians? Money and power. We have already seen how Obama funneled billions to his cronies in the "green industries" all taxpayer money of course....
Add to that the social control they are angling for, and it is clear that the fraudsters have by far the most to gain from the fraud.
We have the same effect here that we have with the use of tobacco. The medical evidence of the ill effects of tobacco was overwhelming, virtually the whole of the medical community stated that it was a fact, and the general population had called them coffin nails for generations. Yet the tobacco industry hired people to generate doubt in the expertise of the medical community, and hired whores like Lindzen and Singer to testify that there was little proof of the ill effects of tobacco.
The very same agencies hired by the tobacco industry are now hired by those like the Koch Brothers to spread disinformation concering global warming and the effects of GHGs. And to once again deny basic science.
I'm not convinced there are trillions in profits in alternative energies. There isn't enough demand without government support and saving the planet is not a very high priority for most households. Without massive government support and lots of international cooperation there isn't going to be much progress in relation to what needs to be done.From 1901 to 1904 there was a publication being sold called "Earth not a Globe Review" proclaiming the earth is really flat. For some people, no amount of scientific evidence is enough. Regardless of the number of Science Academies and Scientific Societies that endorse a theory, there will always be dissenters. This is particularly the case when there are strong economic or religious concerns.
Here we agree. Of course you are ignoring the elephant in the room which is how much will the oil companies garner by keeping things as they are? Hundreds of billions of dollars.
How much will the AGW pushers garner if they get their way? TRILLIONS!
So who has the most to gain by the fraud proceeding? Yup, the fraudsters.
How will the fraud help the politicians? Money and power. We have already seen how Obama funneled billions to his cronies in the "green industries" all taxpayer money of course....
Add to that the social control they are angling for, and it is clear that the fraudsters have by far the most to gain from the fraud.
I don't do science by opinion polling..
.
I'm not convinced there are trillions in profits in alternative energies. There isn't enough demand without government support and saving the planet is not a very high priority for most households. Without massive government support and lots of international cooperation there isn't going to be much progress in relation to what needs to be done.
I don't do science by opinion polling..
.
Presumably you also don't listen to doctors.
I can imagine you consulting 100 doctors on some issue, and then ignoring the 97 who gae the same diagnosis.
Let me guess - the only doctor you trust has an Ayn Rand poster on his wall, right?
Every time 97% is mentioned, those who reject AGW tell us how poorly the survey was done and what idiots we are to trust a sample of 77 individuals.
First, as you can see for yourself if you choose to read the following text (which I trust has been thrown at you before now) FIVE different polls/surveys/reviews have arrived at very similar numbers for the acceptance of AGW among climate scientists. FIVE. Have you got that now? Let's hope.
Second, though it is contended that more than one of the AGW deniers in this forum have some sort of science education that one might presume included at least Probability and Statistics 101, none of them seem familiar with sampling. Or perhaps they choose not to apply what they KNOW. To them I ask the simple questions: what is the likelihood that the opinion of 3,146 individuals out of a group of 10,247 is unrepresentative of the larger group? And what is the likelihood that the opinion of 77 randomly chosen individuals from the 3,146 is unrepresentative of that larger group?
Those of you that have had some statistics know that the answer to both questions is "very small indeed". Tell your friends.
Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
...
..
.
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[110] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[111][112][113][114]
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[115] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[116]
The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.
To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (24), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[117]
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guess I have to do your work for you
Surveys that give other results:
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes
Meteorologists Reject U.N.?s Global Warming Claims | Heartlander Magazine
Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics - Forbes
The two Forbes articles are both by James Taylor, a regular Forbes contributor who actually works for Heartland Institute. Thus, all three of these articles are actually the work of Heartland.
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals? Discursive Construction of Climate Change
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
Lianne M. Lefsrud
University of Alberta, Canada
Renate E. Meyer
Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria and Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Lianne M. Lefsrud, Alberta School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2R6, Canada Email: [email protected]
Funding ---- This research is funded by the Canadian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Fellowship, Killam Foundation Fellowship, Alberta Innovates – Alberta Water Research Institute, and Engineers Canada. Earlier versions of this paper were improved through presentations at EGOS Colloquia in 2009 and 2010 and ETH Academy on Sustainability and Technology in 2011. All remaining mistakes and oddities are the authors’ responsibility.
Frame 1: Comply with Kyoto
The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life. In their prognostic framing,
Frame 2: Nature is overwhelming
The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature: ‘It is a mistake to think that human activity can change this… It would be like an ant in a bowling ball who thinks it can have a significant influence the roll of the ball.’ More than others, they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives
Frame 3: Economic responsibility
Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy. For them, any solution must protect the economy. More than others, they invoke the public interest and the need to promote an informed debate and to educate others, and recommend enhancing efficiency and competitiveness:
Frame 4: Fatalists
‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’ ‘Fatalists’ consider the Kyoto Protocol as ‘too late’ and irrelevant. They are much less likely to support regulation generally, but do also not care about the economy, and are much less likely to express emotions (except for denying responsibility), or use symbolism and metaphors.
Frame 5: Regulation activists
The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. Advocates do not significantly vary from the mean in how they consider the magnitude, extent, or time scale of climate change. They are also sceptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate: ‘the largest challenge is to find out what the real truth is… I don’t know what the impact really is. I suspect it is not good.’ Despite their seemingly ambivalent stance, they are most likely to believe that nature is our responsibility
Every time 97% is mentioned, those who reject AGW tell us how poorly the survey was done and what idiots we are to trust a sample of 77 individuals.
First, as you can see for yourself if you choose to read the following text (which I trust has been thrown at you before now) FIVE different polls/surveys/reviews have arrived at very similar numbers for the acceptance of AGW among climate scientists. FIVE. Have you got that now? Let's hope.
Second, though it is contended that more than one of the AGW deniers in this forum have some sort of science education that one might presume included at least Probability and Statistics 101, none of them seem familiar with sampling. Or perhaps they choose not to apply what they KNOW. To them I ask the simple questions: what is the likelihood that the opinion of 3,146 individuals out of a group of 10,247 is unrepresentative of the larger group? And what is the likelihood that the opinion of 77 randomly chosen individuals from the 3,146 is unrepresentative of that larger group?
Those of you that have had some statistics know that the answer to both questions is "very small indeed". Tell your friends.
Scientific opinion on climate change
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
...
..
.
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[110] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[111][112][113][114]
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[115] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[116]
The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.
To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (24), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[117]
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How many of those climate scientists are capable of understanding errors in programming climate models?
Another uncertainty for climate models ? different results on different computers using the same code | Watts Up With That?
Assessing climate model software quality | Climate Etc.
FOIA HARRY_READ_ME.txt
It doesn't matter if 100% of a million climate scientists share the same opinion if the models were built wrong. What part of a climatologist's field of study teach data management and software development?
To tell the truth --- I don't know what it is that you EXPECTED me to admit.
Was it that Climate Science is such a thorough and MATURE and competent and ethical venture -- that I should immediately take a knee and repent?
I have seen ridiculous errors in programs written by people with PhDs in computer science. I am quite certain that most graduate climate scientists get a great deal of programming instruction and practice.
Their code will be made better far more quickly by troubleshooting than it will by further education of the authors.
I don't know where you live, but I'm in South Florida. Everytime a cloud coming off Africa rotates 30 degrees, they start running the models. The TV weatherman love the graphics. The throw the spaghetti models up there and get the heart rates going. The point I was getting to, though, was that when strong winds and large air masses are in the mix, the models generally group very tightly. When the forward motion of a storm is slow and there is a near balance among forcing factors, the models wander away from each other. They are, after all, modeling chaotic processes.
If you want to suggest that GCMs should not be used for fine-grained predictions, I agree. But when a half dozen of them give predictions within one sigma of each other, I think you'd be hard pressed to make the case that their general trends are due to programming errors.
I think it's your turn to demonstrate a lack of motivational reasoning.
I have seen ridiculous errors in programs written by people with PhDs in computer science. I am quite certain that most graduate climate scientists get a great deal of programming instruction and practice.
How are you quite certain? Faith? Belief?
I've read the code for dozens of climate models. ALL of them are amateurish.
Their code will be made better far more quickly by troubleshooting than it will by further education of the authors.
Not if they don't know how to properly case variables. How does one know if an output is accurate if it's the only data set available? That's the problem with not having professional programmers write these models.
I don't know where you live, but I'm in South Florida. Everytime a cloud coming off Africa rotates 30 degrees, they start running the models. The TV weatherman love the graphics. The throw the spaghetti models up there and get the heart rates going. The point I was getting to, though, was that when strong winds and large air masses are in the mix, the models generally group very tightly. When the forward motion of a storm is slow and there is a near balance among forcing factors, the models wander away from each other. They are, after all, modeling chaotic processes.
And these weather models are written professionally. Not so in the insular world of climatology. Go read the links I posted for yourself and see.
If you want to suggest that GCMs should not be used for fine-grained predictions, I agree. But when a half dozen of them give predictions within one sigma of each other, I think you'd be hard pressed to make the case that their general trends are due to programming errors.
The problem is that the original raw temperature data is not available anymore, it's been sanitized, homogenized, and smoothed by programs written poorly.
Garbage in, garbage out.
These people think they're more intelligent then the vast majority of all climate, physist, chemist, geologist, etc. People like Hansen have already explained why the warming has slown and that's because of Aerosols(negative forcing).
It's just a fact.
I'm not really concerned that someone's programs look amateurish. I'm concerned that they run and that they perform the algorithm they're supposed to.
