Some not only are defenders of CAGW but even the Global Climate Models (GCM) output.
Another testimony below by those who question what is presented. It is not hard to see the error if one examines the information openly.
Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.
.
Another testimony below by those who question what is presented. It is not hard to see the error if one examines the information openly.
fizzymagic on February 16, 2015 at 1:03 am
I have a PhD in physics from an Ivy League school. Im an experimentalist. Ive done low-energy particle, atomic, and nuclear physics for around 30 years at a national laboratory that also employs a prominent member of The Team.
I have seen first-hand the results of placing too much confidence in models. As an experimentalist, the only authority I completely trust is Nature herself. Until a model has been very exhaustively confirmed, it should be treated with an enormous amount of skepticism.
The physics of CO2 is well-established, and there is no doubt that in the absence of other effects increasing CO2 will warm the planet. The null hypothesis should be warming as would be predicted for the TCS and ECS for CO2 acting alone.
However, the claims of the catastrophists are entirely based on models with very finicky positive feedbacks. The amplification of the CO2 warming is therefore, to my mind, extremely uncertain.
I guess that makes me a lukewarmer. I still believe that the burden of proof is on climate science community to prove that the amplification processes will in fact amplify the warming resulting from CO2.
Two things make me assert that the burden of proof has not been met: first, the scientific behavior of the climate science community has been execrable. Acceptance of clearly erroneous papers, such as those from Mann et al., pasted-together climate reconstructions, a tendency to jump on every temperature blip as proof of imminent catastrophe, etc. all serve to show that the community is less interested in communicating the truth than it is in maintaining a narrative of impending doom.
Second, specific predictions have been made from climate models that have not come to pass. The standard excuse now is that the timescales have been too short, but no such qualifications were stated when the original predictions were made. Until climate models have been unambiguously confirmed by experiment, I believe that it is unwise to rely on them for policy purposes.
Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.
.
Upvote
0