The models? The Models? Are these models produced by the same pin heads that produce the tropical storm models? Yeah pretty much they are. Ever seen these? The only point ever in agreement is the static, from there all bets are off.http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad _astronomy/2013/09/26/climate_ change_denial_james_delingpole _tells_it_like_it_isn_t.html
...And finally, no, the models aren’t “bunk”. In fact the models are doing a pretty good job of representing the physical nature of what’s going on. The real problem isn’t with the models, it’s with people interpreting them, or, more accurately, misinterpreting them. Again, I’ll cover this below.
This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why.
Well, actually, no. That’s like seeing a corpse with a bullet wound to the head and saying “Except for the bullet wound to the head you cannot come up with a convincing explanation why this person is dead.”
The idea that the missing heat is being absorbed by the deep ocean is hardly ad hoc. It’s observed. And it’s hardly “new”; we’ve known the deep ocean has been heating up for a while. This is also happening at the same time that we’re seeing relatively cooler surface temperatures in the Pacific ocean, which cools the air. That’s part of a natural cycle, with ocean surface temperatures going up and down over time. For the moment, that effect is greater than the overall warming trend of surface temperatures, so we see a flattening. And despite Delingpole simply dismissing this idea, recent computer models which incorporate the cooler Pacific waters have been able to reproduce this temperature flattening effect pretty well, too (shown in the inset graph), strengthening our understand of how the ocean affects land surface temperatures.
When we cycle back into warmer surface temperatures, the land surface temperature will go back up. We’ve seen this happen before, over and again in the past. You have to be careful not to make any long-term claims about that either; scientists are careful to average over both cooler and warmer cycles to look at the overall trend. Denialists love short-term trends, because they can cherry-pick them to make it look like temperatures are stable or even dropping, when in reality the overall trend is up, up, up.
So the computer models aren’t “bunk”, as Delingpole claims. They’re pretty good, and our best bet for figuring out what’s going on. They get better at doing so over time, too.
You seem to have no understanding that "man made" climate change is a theory and one that has all those who find fault with the science and/or the conclusions are silenced and vilified.
I thought scientists were, by nature inquisitive and willing to look at all evidence. Perhaps that's my Pollyanna understanding of science. It appears that the agenda is more important that real science. But that's what happens when economists rather than scientists are given grants to produce specific results.