Mark, Mark, Mark ... "There is no doubt that temperatures have increased by about a degree or so since 1860..." What ?

Here's just some of the uncertainties about global average temperature
- poor global coverage prior to 1965
- "mean temperature" calculated as average of max and min rather than true average across the 24 hours (and even then the minimum is for the 24 hours to 9:00am and the maximum is from 9:00am)
- temperatures at sea were taken once per day and from up to 5 metres below the surface
- the urban heat island effect is a genuine problem because it distorts the measurements (Forget Parker's paper that attempted to prove otherwise because he didn't know when winds stopped or whether they were wam or cool winds)
- temperatures at some locations are estimated from measurements at others and we ave no idea if they are correct
- global averages are determined by mathematical methods and the 3 agencies come up with different figures, none of which have been validated
- Temperatures read by satellite provide better global coverage, the calibration is a simpler procedure and they don't show the persistent general increases present in temperatures derived from near-surface measurements.

Now don't you think we should be very suspicious about any near-surface temperatures and about claims like "temperatures have increased by about a degree or so since 1860" ?

I thank Mark for a clear analysis of allegations about global warming, and a clarification of how the alarmists operate, particularly the IPCC.

There is global warming, but it is negligible in magnitude, and none has taken place since 1998. There have been 9 years without any global warming.

The promotion of the myth by the IPCC is reprehensible, and in his article Mark makes it clear how they have achieved a widespread baseless belief that there is a problem.

As Mark says, the IPCC forecasts are invalid. It is quite clear that they have no basis for making the forecasts, since the climate system of the planet is far too complex to have all of its aspects taken into account, even if they were all known, so modelling is worthless.

We know that the temperature fluctuates, and we know that warming is not caused by CO2, but rather, the increase in CO2 is caused by warming. We know that human activity contributes an extremely small proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

And yet many of us are hoodwinked by the IPCC into believing that lowering of human carbon emissions can have an effect on the temperature of the globe, and if it did have that effect, that it would somehow be beneficial. Both assertions seem highly unlikely, on any rational consideration, and it is clear that there is no scientific research which supports such belief.

Congratulations Mark, on pinpointing the false basis on which IPCC promotes its fanciful myth.

It is a shame that Mark’s detractors do not take the trouble to read his article before giving their flawed criticisms, in fact, I noticed at least one admit to not having read it before mounting his criticism.

No doubt they are following the IPCC method, which is to dream up a purported Summary of the science, the content of which is based on political requirements. The scientists do not write the Summary, nor do they have any say in its content.

As a keen Punter I am very sceptical of anybody telling me they have a sure-fired method for predicting the future (whether tomorrow's races OR next century's weather). However, I always keep an open mind and assess their claims as follows....

First; I ask for their selections/predictions and watch them for a while. They don't have to be 100% accurate, but they do have to return a profit (be cost-effective). If it's a freebie, between mates, I might accept a little jiggling of the parameters, if the "model" fails to deliver first go; but not if they want me to shell out cash.

If the "prediction model" appears to "deliver" in some sort of consistent fashion I move to step 2. As you'll immediately suspect, we wouldn't be going to Step 2 with any AGW or ACC spruiker; they don't predict accurately and they want money as well! Anyway; Step 2 can only occur if the "system" inventor shows us exactly how the system (the "simulation model") works, which AGW/ACC scientists do.

Step 2. Now I back-test the "system". I apply it to an extensive sample of race data from the past. This means that the race (or weather) data from 1957 SHOULD predict near future results as well as (or nearly as well as) 1977 does; as well as 2007 will. Of course, bearing in mind that plenty of spivs spent time creating systems/models by backfitting results onto the data, we choose data we believe they haven't used. If the model passes this test, well.... Bob's your uncle; here's the $300 you requested; the gloomy future looks a lot brighter.

Funnily enough, seeing as the AGW/ACC alarmists are mostly "genuine" in their hysteria (ie it's self-deception more than "straight" deception; racing spivs work in reverse) most have not done a lot of backfitting. Being unprepared for this, the models which failed Step 1 also fail Step 2. So,all in all; no money from this punter. Cheers.

Punter57, great piece of writing, thoroughly agree. you could do it for a living.