If you go to the 1990 IPCC report, page 202, section 7, you will see the earth's temperature. This was generally accepted by all scientists and many laws were written on the charts on that page. Now just look at it and closely. The temperature bottomed out in the LIA around 1650. The temperature climbed until 1990. The difference between 1650 and 1990 is 0.7 degrees C, with the temperature in 1990 actually only 0.2 degrees C above normal. This means, according to some scientists, that a drop of 0.3 degrees would put us back in the Ice Age.
Is that really a cause for alarm? Or is it making a mountain out of a molehill? There are many on this site, even those with PhDs (Pretty Heavy Drinkers) who will lead you down that path of calamity.
Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." So if you can panic people over a 0.3 degree temperature, that only means you are a great propagandist, not a good scientist.
No my feeling is that Paul Hudson slipped in the obligatory AGW climate speak himself.
I think Mike Lockwood now considers climate to be a lot less sensitive to CO2 now, than he did before, which makes sense considering the lack of empirical evidence.
I don't think of this as a flip flop, more like someone accepting and adapting to the new data, (coming to their senses) being a scientist instead of being dogmatic.
They are not predicting that, but they are changing the scare stories about no more snow. Now more snow can be expected.
Record warm temperatures has been replaced by the temperature is heading into the oceans, where we can't measure it all that well.
And now every temperature outcome is consistent with the models.
No, the message remains the same.
Even a return to Maunder Minimum levels of solar activity would only offset a couple of decades or so of anthropogenic warming.
Would it look anything like this? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisc...
Alarmists/Warmists don't seem to ever tie the past to the present. They seem to always depend on their new toys that predict the future and show their lack of respect of scientific history. We might as well stop all digging for past temperature readings.
I think I am starting to get the hang of science now. You get marks for everything you get right.
But unlike other professions, you don't seem to lose any marks if you get something wrong. That is probably why we have models that give every answer under the sun. The ones that are right are hyped and the ones that are wrong are never mentioned.
Looks like it, change mind time yet again???
-----------------------
Professor Mike Lockwood is a diehard Warmist and he still wants you to believe in man-made Global Warming. BUT... in this recent article he warns that we might soon be going into something like a Little Ice Age. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist
Isn't this the kind of doublespeak we've come to expect from those who got it wrong and are trying to cover their tracks and change their story? Is this the biggest flip-flop on an issue in history?
-----------------------
