Blog powered by Typepad

« Three men in a boat: Darwin, Dawkins and Watson | Main | Kamm Konfused? Surely not! »

Friday, 26 October 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The term climate change has been around for years and reflects the fact that global warming in fact has climactic effects beyond simply heating the place up.

What I don't understand is why some people are so intent on denying this is happening?

Even if skeptical, and there's really no reason to be given the volume of evidence, is it not good practice to err on the side of caution?

Apropos nothing at all, here's a cool cat and an eccentric. Your patience will be rewarded.

Thanks, 'DM', and how that guy swings! If I could play like that I'd do nothing else for the rest of my life. And if you saw him in a coffee shop you'd take him for a trucker!

Hope his back improves!

Simon, I have always been quite clear that I believe the earth's climate is changing for the simple reason that it always has and always will - I hope, because stasis would be a real disaster.

You miss my point (perhaps my fault) that the HAFs, hitherto, have been preaching the message of 'climate warming' but have now changed their tune to 'climate change'. Also, it is not the *volume* of evidence, but the *quality* that leads interested, and to begin with, neutral, observers like me to doubt much of what I have been told.

Finally, there can be a great deal of harm in erring on the wrong side, that is, enforcing methods designed to cool the climate when the sun is going to do it anyway - assuming the sun scientists are getting it right which I am unqualified to decide upon!


I was reading some comments on (I think) Andrews blog and the commentator said there was no validated “General Circulation Model” It’s good thing my chair had arms, a GCM is what you feed all the data into to get an answer.

I did some looking thanks to google. Before the 1950’s they were pure speculation, if we closed out the data on Dec 31 1999 and did it manually we would be a few years away form predicting the year 2000. With the invention of computers it has become possible. The models are getting better. But the latest one used by NASA does not seem to have had in methodology validated by any other organization. As of the year 2000 the model’s could not account for cloud cover, an essential variable. The fact that the authors of the new model are not claiming to have solved this problem causes me doubts.

The case for Global Warming is poorer than I thought.

The comments to this entry are closed.