Re: Global warming - was Re: Michael Crichton dies

[Michiel Pillet <blackalpha195@gmail.com>]

> Sorry, but I do have to comment on this part, because it is the most
> ridiculous and most often repeated argument on denial of AGW.
>
> Predicting short-term fluctuations and long-term trends are two
> different pair of shoes entirely. I cannot predict next week's weather,
> but I can rather confidently predict that it will be colder than the
> weather we had in summer.

...which is making a prediction based on a yearly pattern, in which
you exclude all other variables having an effect on the weather, for
example solar activity. You are actually just approximating the truth.

Although I would not call next week's weather long-term, I agree that
predicting the two are completely different. However, climate
predictions are extremely controversial. There isn't even complete
certainty about ice age patterns, patterns in paleomagnetism or
volcano behavior. Certainly what climatologists are trying to predict
using global warming models is not less complicated. Predicted
temperatures vary incredibly. We are making predictions for over a
hundred years into the future based on 150 years of "accurate" weather
data. How could we honestly have confidence in our predictions?

The "global warming is happening and we are all going to die" attitude
is as ridiculous as the other extreme that we do not have any
influence on climate at all.

Let me make clear that I am absolutely convinced that we have an
influence on climate, and even more so in saying that we should aim
for a 95% emission reduction rate in the next decade or so. What I
strongly disagree with is that we can predict our influences
accurately with the amount of data we have.