The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change

This a great article by Garth Paltridge that Judith Curry posted at Climate Etc.

Climate Etc.

by Garth Paltridge

There is more than enough uncertainty about the forecasting of climate to allow normal human beings to be at least reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be nearly as bad as is currently touted.  Climate scientists, and indeed scientists in general, are not so lucky.  They have a lot to lose if time should prove them wrong.

View original post 2,135 more words


About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change

  1. Brian H says:

    Always it comes back to the misapplication and mis-statement of the “Precautionary Principle”. Certainty of substatial harm from touted solutions should always be weighted much higher than questionable, apparently exaggerated, distant future harms.

  2. Thanks Bob. Good article by by Garth Paltridge. Congratulations for Judith Curry.

  3. jfreed27 says:

    The media delight following the “ship in the ice” tells you everything you need to know about denial. Literally dozens of sites are dancing for joy. The Koch roaches are delirious.

    This is a juicy cherry to be picked, of course. Who would have expected otherwise?

    Look at the NASA temperature anomaly map. It records global temperatures.

    If you look carefully at this world map you can find a “colder” region (in blue). It’s a tiny little portion amongst the “hotter”red regions. Someone found one of the very rare blue areas (Antarctica) and the Priests of Drivel are howling their victory.

    Did anyone mention that Australia had the hottest year on record? Pretty extreme, as predicted.

    Denial kills. The Koch Bros. and Friends who have pumped hundreds of million into anti-science distraction/delay has conservatives tied up into knots.

    Example: a typical page from the anti-science denier playbook goes like this, given the following hypothetical.

    Let’s say scientists predict that 100 year floods will occur five times more often, every 20 years. So, for 19 “normal” years (on average) deniers would crow and hoot, “so where’s your climate change?’ Then on the 20th year (on average), after a massive record breaking flood, their standard meme will be “one cannot say with certainty that THIS flood was the result of climate change; we had a big flood in ____, too”

    Can’t lose, right? If climate had actually changed as above, deniers would simply ignore the fact that the odds (and the frequency and the cost to life and property) of destructive floods have increased fivefold.

    H0w do they sleep at night? Seriously.

    jfreed27, I find your comment magically entertaining, especially the crap about funding, which is why I didn’t delete it. Your comment is off-topic. And apparently all you can do is parrot alarmist dogma and myths.

    Have a nice day,


    PS: Please take your nonsense elsewhere. In don’t have the time to reply to your nonsense. Get it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s