To a greenie, to publish with specificity is equivalent to being exposed.
The problem is, short-term predictions tend to be inaccurate, because there's a lot of "noise". Weather is unpredictable, and 6-month predictions are weather, not climate. A 10-year prediction is a little more doable (removes some, but not all, of the "noise"), and a 30-year prediction is even better.
Show me 30-year predictions that have been proven substantially wrong, and we'll talk.
Oh, sorry my good Doctor, but the models are all FANTASTICALLY WRONG.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/glob...
And there has been no warming of any kind, man-made or otherwise for nearly 18 years.
Several surveys have been conducted of the opinions of scientists on anthropogenic climate change. They have generally concluded that the majority of scientists are convinced that human activity is the most probable cause of global warming.
You have got to love the answer from the warmers. It is easier to predict 30 years out then 6 months out. WHAT????
I have produced many a statistical model, yet I have NEVER seen a statistical model where the confidence intervals shrunk as you went out in time. They must be using that new math.
They suck at predictions which can be verified. That's why all the really bad stuff will happen after 2050, when this latest crop of leeches is long gone. But we need to act now!!!
They do, you're just to stupid to kow this
I'm tired of all these deniers saying so-called "global warming" isn't real. Science has real working climate models that can accurately predict what the climate is going to be in the future. The results have been right on the money now, just look at the graphs Dr. Jimmy Hansen published 10 years ago. They're dead on! With this degree of certainty (over 99.9%) shouldn't climate scientists publish the global climate temperatures for 6 month intervals for the next 100 years? Once the deniers see that we can accurately predict the future, how can they be deniers anymore?
