conservative media climate change bias, page-47

gcadenaz - Your reply to my post started off quite well, but it was disappointing to see it degenerate.

Nonetheless I'll reply to it so that you may better understand where I'm coming from:

(a) I have no problem with two of your PhD friends and their use of the Weather Forecasting model.

But the models to which I am referring is that set of models which have projected the expected average global atmospheric temperature increases, and used by the IPCC in formulating their conclusions. ALL of those projections (ranging from a projected increase of roughly 1.8 degrees/century min. to 5.8 degrees/century max.) are now seen to be lying ABOVE the actual observed trend, over the last decade or so.

Simple logic dictates that there's something wrong here. The IPCC itself has offered explanations, one of which is that the expected warming has found its way into the oceans instead. That may well be the case.

But it doesn't alter the fact that none of the models are getting it right.

(b) Agree with you here - climate change is possibly the most important issue of the day. The key word is "possibly", which is why the science and the policy settings need to be as accurate as we can reasonably get them. At the moment, the science of climate is proving itself VERY difficult to model - we just don't know enough to be confidently allocating trillions to hopefully mitigating what may well be anything from mild to catastrophic outcomes.

(c) I don't watch the Bathurst 1000. I'm not into cars.

(d) I'm not saying the source code underlying the WRF model is incorrect. I'm saying that, regardless of which model or models the set of forward global temperature projections were based upon, this set of outcomes has proven itself to be wrong.

(e) If you still don't know what I'm talking about, you might want to see how all this had to be explained to Dr. David Suzuki on the ABC recently. At least HE came away learning something about the climate science.