Saturday
Nov052011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The Ecologist talks sense
Nov 5, 2011 Climate: Models No, really. I found a really quite sensible article in the Ecologist about global warming and in particular about climate models.
Mistakes, cover-ups and inaccuracies have served to undermine many people’s faith in climate science at a time when its work is more important than ever.
Reader Comments (135)
Tamsin Edwards
The reference to a 4°C rise by 2060 as a “plausible scenario” comes from a 2009 conference in Oxford reported here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/28/met-office-study-global-warming
@geoffchambers
*cheery wave* Let's keep smiling Geoff!
"You are playing semantic games."
I've said that I agree with your description twice. How is that a game?
"I doubt if one person out of a hundred would draw that distinction you claim."
Absolutely, if we are talking about general public vs climate scientists, but the same would apply to many normal words that have been given more technical or precise meanings elsewhere - e.g. theory, likelihood etc etc. I would argue that climate scientists would agree with me in principle:
IPCC AR4 glossary: "Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/radiative forcing scenario used" - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/annex1sglossary-a-d.html
though in practice we can be a bit sloppy about it too.
"And unless you are very careful to define what "condition X" is, you are being disingenuous in your claim that it is not a prediction because all will assume that the condition is very likely to occur."
Condition X is well-described. The SRES scenarios are described in the third and fourth IPCC assessment reports. The RCP scenarios are a little more straightforward because they are described directly in terms of net forcing (rather than SRES emissions which have to converted to concentrations then forcing). I can send you links if you'd like to see the numbers?
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "all will assume that the condition is very likely to occur" - the different SRES and RCP scenarios are not given probabilities, i.e. the phrase "very likely" is not applied to any of them. Could you clarify please?
About the 4degC - Richard may want to comment further, but here is a just-published paper showing a multi-model prediction of future temperature for the A1B scenario, which is quite similar to current emissions.
http://twitpic.com/7bt3wy
These are cooler than the prediction you mention, but with the caveat that not all the feedbacks are included so the true ensemble spread is expected to be wider (which might encompass 4K by 2060 - I'm not sure). See the caption of my twitpic.
I think "disingenuous" is a bit harsh. I'm trying to answer your questions in good faith (instead of, I might add, doing some climate science!). Perhaps you could do the same please?
@Barry
Agree with you. Plausible to me means "not ruled out by physical theory", or perhaps stronger. Richard will be able to comment - I don't have the original paper to hand to see what the differences are between their predictions and previous/later ones.
Actually Richard said it was an 'extreme scenario' ie how are per decade temp rises going.. long way short of hitting 4C
"We've always talked about these very severe impacts only affecting future generations, but people alive today could live to see a 4C rise," said Richard Betts, the head of climate impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, who will announce the findings today at a conference at Oxford University.
"People will say it's an extreme scenario, and it is an extreme scenario, but it's also a plausible scenario."
AND:
"That scenario was downplayed because we were more conservative a few years ago. But the way we are going, the most severe scenario is looking more plausible," Betts said.
so the question, today, in November 2011 vs then, is it looking more or less plausible now?
Back to the "this is what winning looks like" discussion, it may be that tonight's Panorama will be more evidence of a change of heart - although I'm not holding my breath. But the best rated comments on this article in the Independent do seem to provide such evidence.
@Pharos
"Do you have a cooling scenario? I.e. a case where negative natural process overwhelms your CO2 assumptions?"
Could you clarify - do you mean, for example, a decrease in solar radiation which (more than) compensates for the CO2 forcing? As I understand it the solar forcing is kept constant at today's levels (with an 11 yr cycle), and there are no volcanoes - i.e. the answer is no. Having said that, there are increasing numbers of geoengineering scenarios which would reduce the solar forcing - this would be more-or-less (but not exactly) equivalent to a future decrease in solar output.
"Are you not laying yourselves open to become hostages to fortune without one?"
I would argue that the scenarios are meant to answer "given these human activities, what is the climate response?" rather than "what is the range of all possible futures?". The latter is probably too hard - e.g. would have to include Yellowstone blowing up, large asteroid etc. I think the science is best targeted at trying to answer "if humans do x, then what?" rather than trying to imagine every possible thing that could happen to the planet. Hence only considering anthropogenic changes (both unintentional, e.g. industry, and intentional, e.g. geoengineering). Having said that, predictable natural forcings like orbital parameters would be included, if they changed significantly over these timescales.
"Have you seen Abdassamatov's powerpoint on the Heartland website? He predicts a deep global temperature minimum at about 2055-2060 +/- 11 yrs, in other words a new little ice age, starting in 2014."
No, I'll try to take a look.
Panorama appears to be lumping nuclear in with renewables as one of the 'expensive' options which will push our fuel prices up, so while I'm pleased they are asking the question, not so sure they won't come to the wrong conclusion.
Tamsin Edwards
Ah, let's see -- I have to have copies of the IPCC assessment and have to have read them to know what the Condition X is? Why not state them explicitly with the "projection" made in the public press? And I am NOT saying that they should be pointed to, but they should be explicitly stated.
My argument that And unless you are very careful to define what "condition X" is, you are being disingenuous in your claim that it is not a prediction because all will assume that the condition is very likely to occur. still stands.
Tamsin Edwards
You say:
“’You are playing semantic games.’
I've said that I agree with your description twice. How is that a game?”
I think you’re attributing Don Pablo’s comment to me there. Hence the cheery wave, which I gladly return.
I hope it’s clear that I’m not trying to get at you with these questions. I’m sure you and your colleagues at the Met Office and the Hadley Centre do your job correctly. The same may be said of activists, journalists, and even politicians, who are all perfectly entitled to put their own interpretation on the science, within the normal limits of honesty.
On most subjects, the leeway allowed to each link in the information chain rarely leads to gross distortion because there are usually competing opinions within each specialisation; scientists, journalists, politicians etc all disgree among themselves, providing qualitative “error bars” around the received consensus which emerges.
What makes climate science unique is that the normal discussion between competing professionals hasn’t happened. So a scientific paper goes in one end and catastrophe and doom invariably come out the other. And anyone who points out that this process is unsatisfactory is accused of being a denier.
While your enightening interventions here are much appreciated, the simplest way of rectifying this situation would be an open letter from you and your colleagues taking issue with specific cases of over-interpretation of your findings - not here, but in the offending media.
BigYin
If it's the BBC and it's about energy or climate then they're bound to come to the wrong conclusion. Never missed yet!
Robin Guenier 3.17pm
The Panorama programme looks most promising. The trailer you link to says: “Panorama investigates the inconvenient truth behind the UK's rocketing energy bills - that government policy is stoking much of the rise”.
The choice of the phrase “inconvenient truth” looks to me like a coded challenge to the implicit demands for censorship in the Jones report on impartiality at the BBC.
I’m tempted to say that you and TheBigYinJames have persuaded me about "this is what winning looks like", if only because it would be the first time in history that someone had changed their mind because of something they read on the internet.
@geoffchambers, @don pablo
I'm so sorry for attributing Don Pablo's comments to you Geoff. That is *not* good form. Sorry again.
"Ah, let's see -- I have to have copies of the IPCC assessment and have to have read them to know what the Condition X is? Why not state them explicitly with the "projection" made in the public press? And I am NOT saying that they should be pointed to, but they should be explicitly stated."
I think people do try to give a shorthands for each such as "business-as-usual" or "strong mitigation", but the full details of the scenarios are too long to spell out each time. As with any complex area, we have to refer elsewhere to save space - usually to the original articles:
SRES: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=0
RCP: http://www.springerlink.com/content/96n71712n613752g/
But the main UK climate projections (UKCP09) do give more information "inline", e.g. in their FAQ:
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/921/500/
RCP scenarios are quite new so I couldn't find an equivalent example.
"I’m sure you and your colleagues at the Met Office and the Hadley Centre do your job correctly."
Thank you. Sorry if I get defensive, but others here have previously cast aspersions on my science based on 2 minutes of Googling me. By the way, I work at the University of Bristol. Richard and I have crossed paths a bit but not worked together directly.
"What makes climate science unique is that the normal discussion between competing professionals hasn’t happened. So a scientific paper goes in one end and catastrophe and doom invariably come out the other."
I think there's more disagreement within the climate science community than this. For example, James Annan is quite vocal in his opinion of high climate sensitivity estimates, e.g.:
<http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/09/uniform-prior-dead-at-last.html>
But the interpretation of papers outside the scientific community is definitely polarised, yes - the news media love to report doom and gloom (and hate to report corrections, at least prominently...), and media personalities like Jeremy Clarkson love to brush it all off with glee. Not much in between the two.
"the simplest way of rectifying this situation would be an open letter from you and your colleagues taking issue with specific cases of over-interpretation of your findings - not here, but in the offending media."
This certainly happened with "Atlasgate". Due to personal and work-related reasons, I am in the unfortunate position of having several draft manuscripts and no published papers (beyond a review of other's work which you may have missed when it was* blazed across the headlines) (*it wasn't). Once these are published, I would of course correct any misrepresentation online and in the letters page etc.
geoffchambers wrote:
"I’m tempted to say that you and TheBigYinJames have persuaded me about "this is what winning looks like", if only because it would be the first time in history that someone had changed their mind because of something they read on the internet."
Alas, if only it was driven by a journalistic striving for the truth. Journos go with what is popular, just as stories of climate catastrophe was the middle-class angst of the early 2000s, money and unneccesary waste of it is the new bogeyman. This is pandering to that new fear. Just so happens it co-incides with our own views about the exaggeration of alarmist claims. They'll drop us just as quick when some other bogeyman comes along.
TBYJ:
I think geoffC was referring to himself changing his mind - not to journos doing so. So the latter won't drop us - they'll never pick us up. But, as we've discussed, they'll continue to lose interest in CAGW. And now that's started, they're most unlikely to return to it.
Robin Guenier
You’re quite right. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. And now, in the cause of science, I’m off to investigate the world’s only sustainable porn site, as recommended by the author of the “Ecology” article which started all this. I may be some time...
@ Tamsin
My comment about third rate scientists refers to people at UEA, whose climate science course one can get onto with three Bs.
Compared to the four As you need to get into most Russell Group universities I guess you wouldn't dispute that 'third rate' is a pretty apt term? How many Cambridge or Imperial PhDs work in climate science, for example? Not many would be my guess?
If you win 5 to 20% of the grants you put in for, I suggest you are doing it wrong. You should be filtering out the ones where you have a 5% chance of success, and spending the time finding and applying for more of those where you have 20% chance.
If you're going to model the future for a living, it should be possible to model scenarios in which you win 5% of the grants you apply for versus 20% and compare which world offers a nicer climate. It sort of goes to the credibility of the modelling profession.
Speaking of futurology, do you know offhand where the IPCC's assumptions about population, technology change and oil price over the next 100 years come from? All must be there by inference in models of the climate 100 years hence. The latter at least sure as hell can't be peer reviewed by anyone respectable, because predicting the oil price is not respectable and hardly anyone does it.
@Justice4Rinka
Not sure which course you mean - the BSc in climate science? (ABB). The majority of climate modellers are physicists and mathematicians (also a few geographers, chemists, meteorologists and other-modelling types). Of course, there are other areas of climate science than modelling.
I would guess that plenty of Cambridge and Imperial PhDs work in climate science, yes - absolutely. (Anecdotally). Many are ex-industry or ex-other fields like me, particularly astrophysics and particle physics due to the computing element.
You may be right about the grants, but of course higher risk equals higher return (i.e. more years and/or more kudos).
"population, technology change and oil price...All must be there by inference in models of the climate"
No, these are not in climate models. The models make predictions for a set of hypothetical scenarios defined in terms of future emissions - see earlier discussion today about projections vs predictions, and future scenarios. I've put links to the SRES and RCP scenarios in a previous post if you want to read up in more detail. But these are "possible futures", not predictions of what will happen to oil price etc.
Tamsin Edwards
“The models make predictions for a set of hypothetical scenarios defined in terms of future emissions”.
Thanks, that’s what I thought. The only relevant variables are emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, plus aerosols. So when people say “scientists predict a rise of X°C in the year Y if we continue like this”, they’re telling it like it is?
Tamsin Nov 7, 2011 at 3:28 PM
Thanks for your reply. I am primarily addressing the potential weaknesses of climate models to address uncertainty in the processes pertaining to natural climate variations. Clearly the sun, as the dominating source of energy, and the current rudimentary understanding of its behaviour, represents the most significant category of uncertainty and source of continuing debate. Not just from variations in TSI, but by poorly understood atmospheric processes resulting from solar and geomagnetic variability on atmospheric pressure systems, which would include the Svensmark cosmic hypothesis. The Earth is, and has repeatedly been quite capable of enduring, and surviving major climatic changes without any assistance from man. Volcanic eruptions? Major volcanic eruptions will occur. Difficult to say when exactly. (I'm a geologist) But yes- why not do a scenario for a major explosive eruption? It is a distinct and not unlikely case profile.
Some humility, admittance of the chasm in proper understanding of climatic processes rather than arrogance, would be most refreshing to hear, rather than bluster. (Not you! But your community.)
BTW It is my personal view that an scientist seriously contemplating geoengineering, on the basis of present climate science, is mad. Quite mad.(That includes FRS's as appropriate)
Hi Tamsin,
It's good to hear you acknowledge the diversity of opinion amongst climate scientists (@4:09 PM) and I can quite see how this diversity becomes distorted in the media. But there appears rather more to it than simply media distortion. You can easily find individual senior scientists speaking out in their own words on the television and providing a distorted message all by themselves (including, if I'm not mistaken, your old boss!). Perhaps the media also edited their words out of context, who knows?
I understand perfectly well the way in which CO2 may cause problems (you don't need an IPCC report to work that one out!), and I'd therefore like to see emissions reduced. And yet, over 30 years there's been zero advance in emissions reduction policy; no reduction in the uncertainties over climate sensitivity; only a little improvement in understanding how the climate works in the wild.
I know it's not your fault, of course I do. In fact, it's great to find you and Richard here trying to quell people's concerns, and I definitely hope you will both continue. But it would be even more effective if scientists already in the public eye would try rather harder to ensure that the balanced message also gets out there to the people who don't read the blogs.
More on “this is what winning looks like”.
Well, I watched Panorama (see above). And it was surprisingly (even amazingly) critical of the Government’s energy policy. I made a few hurried notes:
But, throughout the programme, there was no mention whatever of shale gas (unless that’s what KPMG was referring to). Amazing.
Hi folks
(Good to see you back here Tamsin!)
Our "4 degrees" paper is here and if you really want (and can stand the hesitant delivery!) you can also even listen to my talk from the Oxford conference here and see the slides here.
(My kids think it's hilarious that I'm on iTunes!!!) :-)
The "exam question" was essentially "when is the earliest date that we *might* reach 4 degrees?" (bearing in mind large uncertainties). In order to get this extreme scenario, we'd need:
(a) a high emissions scenario (intensive fossil fuel use)
(b) high climate sensitivity
(c) strong positive feedbacks between climate change and the carbon cycle (ie: the current 50% airborne fraction becoming smaller as a result of a warming climate)
As you'll see in the paper, it's hard to constrain these so we're careful *not* to say the paper or talk makes any kind of prediction - it's the upper end of what the current (at the time) generation of models and emissions scenarios tells us.
A similar analysis has not yet been done with the new (AR5) generation of climate models (results are still being submitted to the archives).
@ Robin Guenier, I saw Panorama too, this evening. Interesting symbolism at work there - current energy policy as a "gamble" on renewables (given the media's negativity towards "casino banking" in the financial world, not exactly a happy image). The family who were doing all that DECC and FoE could wish - switching off lights, lagging their loft, foraging in the woods for firewood, for goodness sake, like medieval cottars, and still facing hardship. And the "new dash for gas" - as you point out, zero mention of shale. Some footage of the LNG terminal at Milford Haven, with a ship just in from Qatar, so the implication being a dash for imported gas. An incomplete investigation, therefore - mention of the possibly huge reserves of unconventional gas under the UK would have been the final piece of the energy jigsaw. Why did the BBC neglect to mention this, I wonder?
Robin, Alex, I watched it too. And noted the non-mention of shale. Apart from that, it almost looked as if it had been scripted by a BH regular!
Alex/Jeremy:
Most odd. The whole thing felt like a build-up to revealing shale gas as a possible solution to an intractable and increasingly urgent problem. But not a hint. The programme was (for the BBC) remarkably critical of government energy policy - it showed no love for renewables and a grasp of the problems with nuclear (despite Monbiot's intervention). Surely the editors must have considered mentioning shale? But they chose to ignore it. What's going on?
Nonetheless, it was yet more evidence of a slow retreat from the hitherto established view that the "fight to save the planet" is the one overriding concern.
Nov 7, 2011 at 6:28 PM | Justice4Rinka
"How many Cambridge or Imperial PhDs work in climate science, for example? Not many would be my guess?"
You'd be wrong there. From my time at Reading, 20 years ago, the meteorology postgrads were dominated by Imperial, Cambridge and Oxford Physics graduates.
Unrelated, but the discussions seem to be getting dominated by 'Uncertainty' at the moment which seems to me to be the academic waffle term to 'I don't know' which you need to use to stick on your grant applications.
Things like this (from Tamsin's bio)
"I am currently working on the NERC-funded QUEST project PalaeoQUMP, which aims to use palaeodata to reduce uncertainties in climate prediction. For this I have been performing ‘perturbed physics’ ensemble simulations of the Mid-Holocene (6000 cal yr BP) and Last Glacial Maximum (21 000 cal yr BP) climates using the UK Met Office Hadley Centre climate model HadCM3, and comparing them with climate reconstructions from proxies such as fossilised pollen. These comparisons will be used in a Bayesian statistical framework to evaluate the relative success of different parameter values for the model, and to use this information in predictions of future climate change. "
sound just like the curve fitting to parameter tweaked models which really don't have any predictive ability at all, as it all depends on your original model assumptions. I'm interested in the paleoclimate proxy studies so wouldn't mind seeing what the fossilised pollen might tell us about the past though, and I can just ignore the modelling bit
It looks as though the BBC may have based Panorama on a new KPMG report Thinking About the Affordable that recommends scaling back offshore wind and focusing on gas-fired and nuclear power. It's discussed here. The wind industry counters by referring to "the benefits of not being reliant on imported gas" - an argument totally undermined by the possibility of exploiting our reserves of shale gas. Perhaps that's why it wasn't mentioned.
Tamsin re:-
@Philip Nov 7, 2011 at 9:18 PM
“only a little improvement in understanding how the climate works in the wild.”
Aptly said sir, “The Quest” of the climate modeller!
Welcome back Tamsin, I wish you well with “The Quest”.
I have read with interest the exchanges re predictions/projections and the way that they are utilised by parties with vested interest.
For me the credibility of climate science really fell when there was no questioning of the claims by politicians and “activists” (NGO’s and the officers of some governmental departments) that they could control the temperature of this planet. The claim was “we can limit the temperature increase to 2 deg C”.
This statement will appear again and again in the run up to and at Durban.
Do we honestly believe that we can control the temperature of this planet? If so are we, mankind, capable of bigger and better things? Are we capable of ensuring that there will be no more ice ages?
Are we?
Or are we just following, learning and “understanding how the climate works in the wild.”
@ Tamsin
these are "possible futures", not predictions of what will happen to oil price etc.
Thanks for coming back.
The above is the problem. If you programme a model with assumptions, it seems reasonable to consider whether these assumptions are reasonable in what else they imply.
For example, let's take the hoary old one about someone in 1900 having supposedly predicted that there'd be a traffic crisis in London in 2000 because of all the horse dung from all the horses choking the streets. I am sure this one is an urban myth, but it illustrates the point quite well. If the population had multiplied at the 1900 rate, and if horses-and-carriages had proliferated at the then rate for 100 years without constraint, then by 11 years ago, we might indeed have been up to our ears in horse dung.
Except that this would only be possible if there were no real-world constraints on the ability to breed, feed and stable horses so that this Malthusian extrapolation could actually arise. But there are. The flaw is thus not in the maths used in the model, but in the assumptions. Any 1900 projection that we would be under ten feet of horse cack by 2000 would have rested on the assumption of no constraints on how many horses could be, which was obviously abject rubbish. This is without even postulating technology or population changes.
It seems to me that this is something the alarmist industry is very keen not to talk about. Over the next 100 years, we can make all kinds of assumptions about emissions, but anything you assume for your model means you've assumed something else, perhaps inferentially, outside your model.
So if there's an assumption that fossil fuel use will continue, you have made an assumption about fossil fuel price. You may not want to, but you have. It is common ground among sceptics and alarmists that the price of fuel affects consumption levels - otherwise nobody would be arguing for higher taxes on it. Very well - what does this or that model's assumption infer about the future oil price, and who peer-reviewed / validated it? If you want some oil industry experts, try Matthew Simmonds, Andy Hall, Rex Tillerson and probably Abdalla el Badri.
It is exactly like a newsagent saying I sold 2 copies of Radio Times last week and 4 this week so I'll sell 16 next week and 256 the week after that, and in 4 weeks' time I'll sell four billion copies of it. A sceptic would wonder about the supply of, demand for, and logistical practicality underlying a newsagent selling four billion copies of a magazine. The newsagent can't just shrug and say it's not his job to worry about that - well, not if he wants to be taken seriously.
If you haven't done or can't do this reality check, then I'm sorry, but your model is simply rubbish. You have no idea of what the oil price will be, but you have inferred it will have no effect. What oil price experts agree with you? You have no idea what the most significant technology changes will be over the next 100 years, but you must by inference have assumed some. Who is qualified to audit this assumption? If nobody, why are you wasting your time and our money?
Nov 8, 2011 at 9:05 AM | Robin Guenier
This is actually an interesting example of what I was banging on about in my previous post. Anyone who looks at renewables sensibly concludes that they're not sustainable.
For example, the yield of biodiesel from an acre of oilseed rape is half a tonne. Assuming you can get two crops a year (I bet you can't but let's be optimistic), that's one tonne per acre per year. The UK covers 66 million acres of which 25% is arable,.so if we stopped growing food and grew diesel we'd be able to grow about 16 million tonnes a year.
Unfortunately the UK uses about 100 million tonnes a year of oil or its equivalents. So it's abundantly clear that biodiesel is a problem not a solution because if we grew nothing else on our arable pasture not only would we be short of feed, we'd also still run out of fuel.
It is another example of ecolunacy failing the real world test. The same epic fail results no matter what renewable technology one considers. The only one that appears to work is solar farms in the north African desert but sadly these cost a fortune, don't work economically and leave you even more dependent than at present on flaky mediaeval kleptocracies for your standard of living.
It is splendidly ironic that the only empirically sustainable energy source yet discovered is in fact fossil energy. We've never run out of any source of it; unlike solar and biofuels, if you need more, you just produce more; and nobody dies of hunger because you turned their food into coal. You have to laugh.
J4R:
Anyone who looks objectively at the facts must agree. The interesting thing is that politicians in power throughout the Western world seem incapable of doing that - so we are saddled with plainly illogical and damaging policies. That's especially true of the UK. Prompted by the article in the Ecologist, my contribution to this thread has been to point out that, nonetheless, attitudes to CAGW are very slowly changing. Panorama was another example. I believe we've won the argument: our opponents know the game is up. But it's happened far too late to make a difference: few (if any) will admit they are wrong. So the illogical and damaging policies will continue - just possibly with some modification, reduced emphasis and a gradual tapering off. As I've said, this is what winning looks like. And it's not pretty.
To speak of "climate science at a time when its work is more important than ever", is to presuppose the truth of CAGW, ie it's an attempt to stifle any questioning of it.
The Ecologist is at it again. Now it is suggesting that, in view of repeated failure, the world abandons its attempt to find the "holy grail" of carbon emission reduction targets:
But the WWF doesn't like the idea:
Robin Guenier
Most interesting. The article seems to be saying “Lord Lawson was right”. i.e., nothing we can practically do at an international level will make a difference.
They quote “Carbon Trade Watch” which they call a “sceptical group”. Carbon Trade Watch, according to Wikipaedia, ”aims to provide a durable body of research which ensures that a holistic and justice-based analysis of climate change and environmental policies is not forgotten or compromised” and to “accompany and support movements and communities in their local initiatives and struggles for environmental and social justice”.
So they’re sceptical only of the ability of governments to deal with the “problem”.
Like the Guardian environment pages, the Ecologist seems to have given up on justifying “the science” and is concentrating in advancing “the politics” - sort of holding the fort until the next IPCC report comes to their aid.
geoffchambers:
Maybe - but I suspect (and certainly hope) that Donna L's destruction of the IPCC's credibility will be widely accepted (if only covertly in some quarters) well before AR5 is published.
unique and very interesting, thanks for the idea...offshore banking