Glad to see you are actually prepared to refer to something to back up your arguments. It looks like you are interpreting those grey bands to be a maximum error

Glad to see you are actually prepared to refer to something to back up your arguments. It looks like you are interpreting those grey bands to be a maximum error margin. I can't see that actually mentioned anywere on the graph and since there is no accompanying article it is difficult to be certain that is the correct interpretation or of course when the predictions were made. Those grey bands also go back in time which sheds some additional uncertainty on the matter. The graph isn't quite large enough to gauge the precise expectations but it seems that if you believe that the climate has cooled in the last 10 years it would disagree with that graph. However this is not necessarily the case as is argued in the following article http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527 I'm sure that as you are reading the article the words 'babble' and 'hype' will be crossing your mind. But the fact is that science involves a great many complexities and a often this invloves a great deal of thought, consideration and - yes - 'words'. > Not being able to predict the weather tomorrow may not mean you can't predict the climate 50 years from now, but not being able to predict the climate 5 years from certainly does. It is quite easy to come up with a function that defies this explanation. Try this T = N*2 + 5R Where R = random number between -1 and 1 (different for each year) and N = the number of years from the start For N < 5 the effects of the random factor 'R' can predominate. However as N rises the true nature of the relationship with Y will become aparent. 'Signal plus noise' situations like this are very common in science. It is a good thing that there are those who disagree with the majority view on issues. However without solid scientific arguments it is easy to see how those views are disregarded.