UK Met Office Overstating Global Warming. Official.

[mistermack]

What bollocks. Who's going to produce a peer reviewed paper, just for the purpose of attacking someone else's work?.
You produce your work to stand on it's own merits. He wrote a public article criticising the Met, and they replied in like manner.

[subversive science]

You seem unaware as to how the scientific process works. The body of knowledge is advanced through peer review, not blogs and newspapers. Even the response from the Met Office invited Lewis to submit his work through peer review, to which he responded with some rant about stifling dissent.

You still have not addressed the only slightly above average warming, with respect to the CMIP mean, that the "erroneous" sensitivities produce.

[subversive science]

*Correction*
Earlier I stated that the MIT 2D model was based on the GFDL model. This is incorrect. It is a zonally averaged version of the GISS Model II.

[pErvinalia]

What bollocks. Who's going to produce a peer reviewed paper, just for the purpose of attacking someone else's work?.

You don't appear to understand how science works. Not that we needed any further reinforcement of that fact.

[Seth]

and???
there is a range of outcomes - mostly dependent on how much emissions ....
the core situation remains the same even if shifted a decade or two nearer or farther....

it's getting warmer
we're responsible

until YOU get to that.....anything you post is facile self stroking and you know what that leads to

Problem is you're still ignoring the most serious flaw in every single model out there: margin of error.

Not one of those models has a predicted temperature change that is not completely overshadowed by the model's margin of error as little as one year out, much less five or fifty years. What the models show is "we think the mean temperature change might be X, but the margin of error in our calculations more than a few months out is so large on either side of the prediction that our prediction is utterly meaningless."

That's precisely why none of the "experts" predicted the lull in warming we're experiencing.

If they couldn't predict that sixteen years out, then why on earth would anybody believe any prediction they make for the next century...or next week for that matter?

Computer model predictions stated without also stating the margin of error for the time span of the prediction are exactly as true as Obama's saying 35 times "If you like your present health care plan you can keep your plan, period."

In other words, they are all bald-faced lies and the scientists know it. But they know where the grant money comes from, so they just elide this small but important bit of data when propagandizing the credulous proletariat.

[pErvinalia]

They're all Marxists.

[Seth]

They're all Marxists.

No, they are all useful idiots.

[pErvinalia]

I thought they were the same thing?

I apologise if I am wrong. I haven't been keeping up with your loony rants lately..

[JimC]

I thought they were the same thing?

I apologise if I am wrong. I haven't been keeping up with your loony rants lately..

How the fuck you are going to pass Sethology 101 I simply do not know...

[Clinton Huxley]

1) All problems can be resolved with a gun.
2) You can't shoot climate change
3) Climate change is not a problem.

Simples.

[JimC]

1) All problems can be resolved with a gun.
2) You can't shoot climate change
3) Climate change is not a problem.

Simples.

How the hell did you get an advanced copy of question 1 in the Sethology 101 Exam!

[Clinton Huxley]

1) All problems can be resolved with a gun.
2) You can't shoot climate change
3) Climate change is not a problem.

Simples.

How the hell did you get an advanced copy of question 1 in the Sethology 101 Exam!

I shot open the safe at the exam board.....

[JimC]

Bonus points!

[pErvinalia]

[mistermack]

What Seth consistently does get right, is his criticism of the 'margin of error' placed on climate model predictions, which effectively should invalidate them from being called a model, or a prediction.

It's basically getting your excuses in early, wrapped up in mumbo jumbo.
And that's what the Met office are using in this case.

They are arguing that the near zero increase in temps over the last fifteen years is still within their ''predictions''.

It's like saying that I bet on Man United to win 2 : 0, and they lose 0 : 2 , and I claim that I still got it right.

It's a direct analogue. They predicted serious warming. It didn't happen. They still got it ''right''.