John Blake Wrote:Like botany, AGW “climate studies” (sic) are exercises in hindsight only. Absent formulation of hypotheses subject to empirical falsification [nothing is ever truly verified], “peer review” has no results to replicate. All that’s left are superficially descriptive “models” which give statistical odds but cannot in principle extrapolate or forecast any particular outcome or “mutation” whatsoever.

By Edward Lorenz’s Chaos Theory, complex dynamic systems –those with three or more interacting variables– are intrinsically unpredictable. Sensitive dependence on initial conditions aka the “butterfly effect” engenders “strange attractors” exhibiting Benoit Mandelbrot’s “fractal geometry” whereby phenomena become self-similar on every scale. On geological time-scales, even “climate” as such is not a given.

So long as climatologists of integrity –emphatically excluding Green Gang propagandists sunk in academic, corporate, agency-sponsored Big Government cesspools– understand their limitations, put contemporary data in long-term cyclical context and perspective, credentialed evaluations have some interest. But beware… however plausible, 1910 scenarios bore no resemblance to conditions prevailing over the next hundred years. Now on the threshold of a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, Warmists’ decades-long sabotage of global energy economies may well result in mega-deaths worldwide.