On the "Prometheus" weblog, I criticized the IPCC Third Assessment Report as being "pseudoscience."
A fellow named "Kevin" responded:
"Mark - in your short (first) comment above you either have a problem with the science itself or the people (i.e. enviros) that are using science incorrectly."
No, it's neither. I have a problem with people who call themselves "scientists," publishing pseudoscientific rubbish (intended to scare the public) in the name of science.
"...in which case you need to back up your claims of 'pseudoscience' with solid science research of your own...."
I have done solid scientific research of my own. In my own spare time, over a mere couple hundred hours (and without any supercomputers or international conferences), I've developed ***probabilistic*** projections for future atmospheric methane concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases, that are FAR SUPERIOR to what the IPCC managed to do in their Third Assessment Report (TAR)...which involved nearly a decade of research and probably more than $100 million of taxpayer money.
The IPCC TAR laughably has "scenarios" ("stories") that have "projections" of temperature increases of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius increase from 1990 to 2100. But they explicitly do NOT assign any probabilities to any of their scenarios, and explicitly disavow that anyone should even *try* to assign probabilities to any of their "projections." In other words, their "projections" are as scientific as an astrology column.
Well, my research leads me to predict that, absent any further government intervention, there is a 50% chance that lower troposphere from 1990 to 2100 will be below 1.2 degrees Celsius, and that there is a 90 percent chance that the warming in the lower troposphere will be between 0 and 2.5 degrees Celsius. In other words, I predict there is a 50/50 chance that, absent any further government intervention, warming will be less than the LOWEST value projected in the IPCC TAR.
Further, I've challenged ANY IPCC TAR author to bet me that their projections are better than my projections:
I've also offered to pay two climate change scientists (James Annan and William Connolley) $8 for every IPCC TAR author they can even get to VOTE on the bet (the votes are free):
So far, not even a single IPCC TAR author *vote.*
But of course, it was already clear the IPCC TAR authors wouldn't stand behind their work, because they didn't have any estimated probabilities for their "stories." It's much better to pretend that there's a reasonable chance that the world will warm by "up to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100."