Regarding my critics (Science Fiction, Sentinel-Times 3/9/13 p30) I have noticed that in debating important issues that one’s opponents attack one’s character instead of debating the issue on its merits. All I did to raise their ire was to quote the officially recorded land based temperatures and the officially recorded level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone can get the latest report from the IPCC by typing in “Mail Online + IPCC”.
Let me bring to your attention one paragraph: They recognize that the global warming “pause” first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997. They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 960 and 1250AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower. The IPCC admits while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new high. Again the IPCC cannot say why.
A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped without mention. One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the IPCC’s last assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of “misrepresenting how science works”. He went on: “The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future”.
DJ Auchterlonie, Trafalgar