Categories AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Global Warming Omniclimate Politics Science Skepticism The Pope Should Learn A Thing Or Two From Certain Climate Scientists Post author By Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) Post date 2009/02/09 No Comments on The Pope Should Learn A Thing Or Two From Certain Climate Scientists Who could have ever imagined, the white-robed guy in Rome somehow admitting fallibility, whilst there still is nothing, nothing, nothing at all that will ever under any circumstance contradict contemporary consensual climate “science”? Tags infallibility ← Is Gavin Schmidt The Best Thing Ever Happened To AGW Skeptics? → Nessuna Speranza A Sinistra 0 replies on “The Pope Should Learn A Thing Or Two From Certain Climate Scientists” Well at least we can expect an apology in the next 150 to 200 years. I see another Pope has made quite a stir at the Met Office trying to prevent alarmism. The Grauniad’s comments pages are buzzing and yet the Beeb hasn’t covered it – quelle surprise. Links to the articles mentioned by Luke Warmist http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-science-pope Maurizio there’s still another 150 years in which to expect the IPPC’s apology. Let me try to clarify my above point. Most of the AGW claims that make it into the media are so absurd, then one doesn’t have to be a sceptic to demonstrate this. One can just refer back to what the IPCC’s report actually say, to point out how ridiculous, and without scientific merit, certain of these assertions are. The .2C temperature trend is right out of AR4. Whether AGW will be or can be disproved sooner, depends on the global average temperature trend over time. If it kept sinking or rising ‘dramatically’ for several more years in a row, AGW could be disproved (or confirmed) sooner. Assuming AGW is not true, political forces may hasten its demise or maintain its acceptance long after it’s been disproved scientifically. As for every AGW supporter who pontificates on some catastrophic scenario yet who want’s to insist they have the support of a consensus of thousands of scientists: it might be helpful to point out that most of their claims are at best speculations unsupported by the IPCC. I.e., if the IPCC tells us that it cannot forecast/model ahead of time with any accuracy regional climate effects, then when an AGW supporter tell us that warming, cooling or whatever, in region X is due to global warming, it wouldn’t hurt to point out they are at best speculating and scare mongering and that there is no reliable scientific basis for the claims they are sprouting. If the climate scientists admitted an error, then critics would use that against them. That is only a problem if the climate scientists consider their political goals more important than accurate science. Yes there is, lack of global warming. IPCC AR4 has forecast .2C per decade for the first few decades. If after 20 years we’re, say, cooler than we are now, that would put an end to the AGW case as it’s now been presented. But a lot of people aren’t happy with those time frames and would like to see the issue settled tomorrow. Will those are your criteria. I am not sure they are shared by the most prominent AGW climatologists and advocates, as it should be clear from the links I have posted Leave a Reply to omnologos Cancel reply This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.