Sunday, December 28, 2008


So here is a central question:
  • If your current computer models can't predict the known past from retroactively entered data, then why, precisely, would you expect them to accurately predict the future?

Perhaps the answer is contained in this reality:
  • The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times, long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels.
  • The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years.
  • Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years).
Which is why some people find the basis for AGW to be both uncompelling and unconvincing: i.e. a reason for skepticism.

All in all, enough to make some conclude that AGW a scam, with no basis in science.

As a minimum, it appears to be science that lacks consensus.

If it is not yet the end of AGW, it is at the very least, the beginning of the end.

And of course, the beginning is now the end, just as the end is now the beginning. See? Wasn't that easy?