If you’re looking for just one thing (statistically oriented), see the series on how to reconstruct and homogenize temperature series. The IPCC’s pictures, in particular their “confidence bounds” are too narrow, far too narrow. Yet another instance of the old “parameter-based” view of statistics (parameters reified as reality) and the new, predictive approach (where observables rule).
Meaning—as I’ve been saying for years—these fellows (and fellowettes!) are far too sure of themselves. If you’re on a desert isle, you can surf over to the same CP page (woefully behind in updating) and look at the statistical articles.
On the other hand, if you’re like me, you might skip reading everything. Is there any political will left for action on global warming? You can only scream so long before the fear of your audience turns to boredom and, finally?, to hostility. I find the whole area tedious; my heart sinks each time I see some earnest true believer trying to explain how the sky is falling, even though year upon years of observations shows it rising. And if you don’t like that screwy backwards metaphor, I’ve got plenty of others.
The number of blown forecasts have been so many you’d guess climatologists would go into hiding instead of trumpeting how accurate are their beliefs. I can’t even be upset with them, the poor dears. Do you know how gut wrenching it must be to even contemplate admitting to the world—the whole world which has been following your every word—that you have been wrong? Imagine the loneliness they’ll soon feel. Sad.
My eyes now glaze over, almost literally, whenever I see yet another whatever-they’re-calling-global-warming-this-week story. Maybe yours will do the same when scanning these old posts. I wouldn’t blame you.
So, this post, and tomorrow’s, may well be the last you hear from me on this subject.
Global Warming & The Environment
Lewandowsky’s Faked Moon Landing