An interesting article which is almost a classic example of the Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt model used first by Big Tobacco and now by Big-Coal.
Credibility = Zero

THe sad part is that some of the hypocrites flying to Paris really think they have a say over climate. What a deluded bunch. Thats what happens when science is replaced by pseudo science and morals are replaced by pseudo morals.

Unfortunately for all of Earthkind, or both the human and non-human inhabitants of this Earth-world I find the much more sobering scenario(s) described and/or predicted on the Nature Bats Last website (and the people and websites that link into it) to be much more realistic re the situation that we are in, or have created for ourselves.

The usual cherry picking, obfuscation and doubt sowing as practiced by all the deniers. A geologist for petes sake. One who doesnt know what facts are.

Why choose 30 years for fact one. Even children know climate change is predicted over a century or more and our records go back at least that far.
Why 30 years? To sow doubt and fool people. Lies not facts.

Fact two is also more of the same. Computer simulations are checked by the WHAT WAS method. They run the model on past climate, of which we have actual measurements and they see if it matches up with what really happened. If it matches we can be pretty confident that its future predictions are reasonably sound. Forget that bit did you or just another lie by omission?

Fact three is just a snide insult at scientists of which you are obviously not one. You are just a geologist. A dirt and oil digger.
Come back and talk to us when you are a climatologist and know what you are talking about.

FACT ONE

“The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and its predecessor, the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), have been coordinating the publication of global climate normals at the monthly scale for about 75 years. Member nations of the IMO/WMO were first mandated to compute climate normals for their respective countries for the 1901–30 period, and are required to update these climate normals every 30 years, resulting in the 1931–60 normals and the 1961–90 normals. Since 1956, the WMO has recommended that each member country recompute their 30-year climate normals every 10 years.Although some member countries do not update their climate normals every decade, for ease of comprehension we hereafter refer to the recommended decadally updated 30-year average as the standard WMO climate normal.”

“Although climate normals are simply 30-yr averages, the computation of climate normals is a nontrivial, multifaceted process. The WMO provides member nations with considerable leeway on the methodology employed in computing climate normals, such as quality control, the handling of missing data values, etc.”

Source: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS2955.

FACT TWO

"There is another aspect of climate modelling practice that creates complication, namely the fact that today's models have been tuned in various ways. Tuning involves ad hoc adjustment of a model's parameter values or structure in order to improve its performance with respect to observational data, whether at the level of individual processes or at the system level."

"Given the ad hoc nature of the tuning process, it cannot be assumed (without further testing) that the performance of a tuned model with respect to as-yet-unseen data will be similar to its performance with respect to the data to which it is tuned."

This adds..."further difficulty to the task of discerning what the performance of today's climate models up to now indicates about their adequacy for various predictive and explanatory purposes."

Source: Confirmation and Climate Models
The Aristotelian Society
Supplementary Volume LXXXIII
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00179.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8349.2009.00180.x/abstract