Climate Science; the New Age Phrenology

Climate is the moving average of Weather.  When you can’t predict the weather more than three to five days out, why would you claim that climate predictions are a science?

Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds rounds up the latest problems with the “accepted science” of AGW in a (for him) long and heavily linked piece:


Related: Climate change panel in hot water again over ‘biased’ energy report.

Also: Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for ‘Adjusted’ Sea-Level Data.

And: Rex Murphy: Climate Scientists Make A Mockery Of The Peer-Review Process.

You know, I’m entirely ready to believe that CO2 emissions
are having an effect on the climate. But the scientists involved
aren’t acting as if they’re confident in letting the data speak for
themselves, which is a big deal since they’re asking us to make enormous
economic sacrifices based on what they’ve predicted. If, say,
pharmaceutical companies were caught doing the same kinds of things, the
politicians and the news media would be after their scalps.

I’m not so ready to accept that thesis (that man made CO2 is changing global climate).  This chart remains rather damning of that hypothesis:


As crises go, this ain’t. As Glenn notes:

Meanwhile, for the political leaders, well, I’ll believe it’s a
crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a
crisis. Until they start foregoing private jets and beachside
mansions, it’s going to be hard for me to take their calls for sacrifice
on my part seriously.

My guess is she's an Obama supporter
Crony Capitalism Update