Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

In 2007, a team of climate scientists from the UK Met Office led by Doug Smith wrote a paper “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model”, published in the journal Science. Although published in 2007, the paper made predictions for the decade 2004-2014. (Presumably the work was started around 2004 and it took some time for the paper to be published). The paper made claims about the “skill” of the model, for example “Having established the predictive skill of DePreSys…”

The Smith et al paper made the following specific predictions:

There would be 0.3°C warming over the decade 2004-2014

At least half of the years after 2009 would be warmer than the record year of 1998.

Observations and five-year mean forecast from November 2009


Observed (A) and forecast (B) maps of surface temperature differences (°C) relative to 1981-2010 for the 5-year period November 2009 to October 2014. Forecasts consist of 4 ensemble members starting from November 2009. The stippling shows where the observations lie outside the 5-95% confidence interval of the forecast ensemble.

The perception that one political group is less science-savvy than another is predominately driven by the unwillingness of many conservatives to accept global-warming alarmism and the policies purportedly meant to mitigate it. But when it comes to climate change, volumes could be written about the ill-conceived, unscientific, over-the-top predictions made by activists and politicians.

We could start with our own Malthusian Science Czar, who once predicted that climate change would cause the deaths of a billion people by 2020 and that sea levels would rise by 13 feet. In 2009, James Hansen, one of nation’s most respected climate scientists, told President Obama that we have “only four years left to save the earth.” In 1988, he predicted parts of Manhattan would be underwater by 2008. If you don’t like high-speed rail, Jerry Brown will let you know that LAX Airport is going to be underwater. And so on and on and on. What we most often hear from science-loving environmentalists is nothing more than speculation.

If there weren’t some kind of left-wing ideological endgame propelling this tendentious guesswork and scaremongering about a relatively small changes in earth’s climate, it would be laughed out of any serious debate. Yet, in the contemporary world, there is no consequence for being a professional Chicken Little. In fact, the media puts you on Team Science.

You don't have to believe the science around climate science. But to think that it is a conspiracy that's propagated by thousands of scientists across multiple countries for multiple decades... Well that sounds pretty loony to me. I prefer to look at the conclusions of hundreds of rigorously-tested scientific studies, instead of cherry-picking random quotes made along the way.

BTW, ever look up how much money is being poured into debunking the findings of the climate science community?

It is good that someone start to parrot what is recently posted on WUWT again.

But there is a MASSIVE amount of money spent lobbying by Deniers.

Hey Chiloe.

Do you mind disclosing your publications list and funding sources?