"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
In uk.sci.weather on Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Adam Lea
wrote :

The forecast marks a shift in thinking by climate change researchers.
Instead of using their models to look many decades ahead, they will

Roll dice?

There is no consistency in climate prediction models, so why should we
take any projections seriously?
--

There is from the fact that they allpredict a warming trend over the long
term.

Except the ones that suggest the gulf stream will switch off, plunging
Europe into a new ice-age, you mean?

Which ones are those then? You haven't been watching "The Day After
Tomorrow", have you


It is merely the magnitude of this trenf that is in doubt, and that is
why forecasts tend to have a "most likely" range as well as an actual
forecast value.

Problem is, the tabloid media only ever looks at the most alarmist
predictions, and tries to present then as fact.

I agree that is a problem. The best way arouind this is to look at the
sources which prompted the media article. Useful thing to do when, for
example, the Met Office issue a seasonal forecast and the media spin it up
into something ridiculous.


To try and imply they are useless is just wrong and very disrespectful to
climate scientists.

Only to the ones accepting money to produce results that conform to the
current orthodoxy...
--

Well I could easily claim that the skeptics are funded by oil companies to
put out propaganda statements. It would be about as valid a claim as yours.
I think if we are going to have a debate about the science then lets stick
to the science, not the politics.