November 26, 2011

Peer reviewed - Climate forecasts exaggerated

It's a relief to see real science being reported - not politicians frowning with deep concern and intoning as if they have a clue, nor a single claim to "consensus" - just good old fashioned peer reviewed research:
Dramatic forecasts of global warming resulting from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been exaggerated, according to a peer-reviewed study by a team of international researchers.
In the study, published today in the leading journal Science, the researchers found that while rising levels of CO2 would cause climate change, the most severe predictions - some of which were adopted by the UN's peak climate body in its seminal 2007 report - had been significantly overstated.
The authors used a novel approach based on modelling the effects of reduced CO2 levels on climate, which they compared with proxy-records of conditions during the last glaciation, to infer the effects of doubling CO2 levels.
They concluded that current worst-case scenarios for global warming were exaggerated.
"Now these very large changes (predicted for the coming decades) can be ruled out, and we have some room to breathe and time to figure out solutions to the problem," the study's lead author, Andreas Schmittner, an associate professor at Oregon State University, said.
Actually that's not a "novel" approach at all, but the statement merely illustrates how dumb journalists and the rest of us have become, how accustomed to glib statements and insults, in place of actual science.  Their method is closer to a null hypothesis approach - you know, the approach science used to take, until the religion of climate change came along, then half-arsed consensus was suddenly anointed the fully-funded gold standard, preferably if accompanied by abuse of non-believers, stern looks and occasional tears.

Review fails to support climate change link

5 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:11 PM

    Damn, that means iJustin will be well and truly dead before it gets exiting. Pay all that tax for what?

    ReplyDelete
  2. As we've come to expect, despite new - robust - evidence, iCaz notes that yesterday's favorite arm of the hate media carried a story of alarm and panic, with graphs and everything: extreme weather events are going to get worse, bigger, uglier, by the second.

    So, maybe, iJustin WILL live long enough - like, until at least next week, 'cause when diabolical things are nigh, it should be any minute now.

    Those taxes? Oh, come on, you didn't think a new big tax was for any reason other than revenue? If they were SERIOUS they would have removed relevant taxes and subsided the cost of renewables and any proven energy efficiency measures. Make the good things affordable, in other words (since they never will be, if left to the open market.)

    That's if they really believed in what they say.

    Alternatively: new taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. iKath is fed up to the iteeth with the religion of climate change and its intolerant fuckwit propagandists

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:39 PM

    You know we ought to invent a light globe that lasts for one hundred years of more, that would help keep things cool and cheap:

    http://www.centennialbulb.org/facts.htm

    http://sgtreport.com/2011/11/must-watch-we-are-managed-by-our-corporate-masters-like-animals-in-a-zoo-look-below/

    j

    ReplyDelete