Both papers awful and should be rejected. They clearly don't know the climate literature - and like many seem not to want to accept that the climate is changing because of our emissions of greenhouse gases. Solar variability/climate relationships (use to be called solar/weather relationships) have generally been awful articles for decades. I'm not sure why Barrie Pittock decided to write the paper I referred to in 1983 (and the earlier one in 1978), but I'm glad he did. I have referred to this paper a few times in articles I've written, but I've referred to it much more in rejecting articles of this type. There is really only one paper where a solar influence on climate on decadal and longer timescales that has been shown to be possible (i.e. it passes Pittock's criteria).
They Just Won’t Leave the Kids Alone
3 hours ago
Posts
3 comments:
'awful.' That work keeps coming up. I could wish they would say HOW, but my guess is, when they say 'awful,' they mean 'the evidence goes against what we're trying to preach, and we must do all that we can to demean, demonize and destroy it.'
Here you go Otter.
I'm guessing their definition of awful is when their activist results don't meet the minimum scientific standards for relevancy when they are tub thumping for political results.
" Our main concern (although there
are other more detailed ones) is your use of the 95% confidence limits
of natural climatic variability as some sort of threshold for change.
This is a reasonable thing to do if you are addressing the question of
whether climatic change will be detectable at a "scientific level" of
confidence, but that is certainly not the question I would expect WWF to
want answered, nor is it the one most relevant to giving policy advice.
The relevant question is "What is the best estimate of climate change,
given the assumption that increasing GH gases will cause change?". [Pittock to Hulme]
Minimum science standards are for other people when they get in the way of "the cause".
The sun... only 1 paper shows that it's even possible that the SUN influences climate? You got to be kidding.
Post a Comment