A superb blog post at Not A Sheep about one of those expert climate change predictions from the University of East Anglia’s lavishly funded and globally respected (stop sniggering) ‘Climatic Research Unit’. Enjoy.
This is the CRU of Climategate infamy and the predicition is one you won’t find the warmists talking about because with all this extra snow and record cold in the northern hemisphere they have now completely reversed their narrative to fit around current observations. No matter what the weather is, for those with a vested interest it’s a sign of “climate change” / “dangerous climate change” / “extremely dangerous climate change“.
But at the heart of it all appears to be nothing more than a financial and political objective rather than any environmental concern.
But that doesn’t stop people like Vicky Pope at the Met Office continuing to play the game. We saw plenty of coverage of her comments about warming continuing albeit more slowly. But where was the coverage of the views of a knowledgeable and high performing meterologist who predicted this and believes it is not man but nature causing the changes in climate? The man to read on the subject is Joe Bastardi (click to enlarge).
Autonomous Mind 
If we say that climate temperature is related to CO2, then we are claiming that there is a known mathematical relation between these two variables – an equation that links the two.
The trouble is, there is no such equation and its absence is hidden by the strategic use of climate models. Climate models obscure the uncertainty of climate physics and the lack of a testable equation to link temperature and CO2. We also know why the lack of physics has to be hidden – because climate is a coupled, non-linear chaotic system where we don’t know any of the equations which might describe it. Even if we did know them, they would be unsolvable – that is to say they would have unstable solutions.
The IPCC effectively admits this in the executive summary of chapter 14 in its 4th assessment report.
There are, however, incontovertible data on the increase in atmospheric CO2. Given population growth and increasing economic growth, this rise is set to increase.
Also clear is the decreasing alkalinity of the oceans; the effects on plankton at the bottom of the food chain is unclear.
There is also evidence that we have already passed ‘peak oil’; a strategy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels therefore makes sense.
The question then is: how much economic growth should we sacrifice now to achieve this strategy?