.
Heh, temperatures didn't play ball so they need some excuse...
Quote via Towering Q #178:
In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context.
via Towering Q #182:
It is very easy to search the internet for material that suits your argument,...
Well, lets have a look-see at a couple of books.
Via the book
Living in the Hothouse by Ian Lowe, written in 2005. Page 51 referring to CSIRO climate temperature computer models...
"All the modelling predicts significant temperature increases for Australia, even on a short time scale of 25 years." All the models,
significant temperature increases - No ifs butts or maybe there..
Who's Ian Lowe; (2005 book reference) "Ian Lowe is... an emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University. An expert on global warming... contributed to IPCC... member of the Australian Climate Group..."
Via
The Garnaut Climate Change Review 2008. Page 84, 4.2.1 Confidence in climate models:
"...The ability of climate models to accurately simulate responses in the climate system depends on the level of understanding of the processes that govern the climate system, the availability of observed data for various scales of climate response, and the computing power of the climate model... ...For some elements of the climate system, such as surface temperature, there is broad agreement on the pattern of future climate changes... ...The likelihood of a particular outcome can be assessed through the use of a range of models. However, outcomes at the high or low end of a range of model results may also be plausible..."
Garnaut gave himself plenty of outs there with the "high or low end" range. Trouble is the actual real world temps drop clean off the low end of the scale... so much for the "level of understanding", or as Al Gore and co would say "the science is settled"..
Now lets hear from a sceptic of the climate models used by Lowe and Garnaut...
Via
The Climate Caper 2009, by Garth Paltridge, atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO division of Atmospheric Research:
Page 34
"...Perhaps one of the biggest problems with numerical modelling is that it is a gentlemanly activity conducted entirely from one's desk. There is no need to visit the real world to often... ...The fact that the results may have nothing to do with the real world can conveniently be ignored. Other models take the place of observation...
...The high probability attached by the IPCC to its thesis of climate disaster is not the result of careful scientific analysis of theory verses experiment. Basically it derives from a set of people sitting around a table making personal guesses about the quality of the models..."
Looks like the IPCC geussed wrong... oh well, there's always the sun to blame..
.