It’s being reported elsewhere that the the report blames a 15-year lull in warming on the deep sea. This will in the long run probably turn out to be the report’s most salient point.
Those who tend to follow the climate models more than the astrophysical and cosmological models are probably not aware that there is a long tradition in those latter (more speculative) scientific disciplines of attributing unexpected observations which deviate from conventional models to phenomena that is either hypothetical or difficult to observe. In astro- and solar physics, when an anomaly is actually acknowledged, there is a tendency amongst researchers to point to magnetic fields as the culprit. Many times, enigmatic observations which cannot be properly explained are oftentimes ignored or shelved for a future date.
For instance, the Milky Way is apparently a very large galaxy, and should be expected to exhibit gravitational lensing at its core. But, we’ve had many years to observe it by now, and we see no evidence for any lensing there …
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08.htm
To be clear, had lensing been observed, the match would have been widely reported in scientific press releases, and it would have been heralded as further evidence of lensing. But, since it wasn’t a match, we don’t see the typical flurry of reports, and the failure to observe the lensing is generally ignored as having much meaning.
I know that people are very concerned about interference in science from corporations, but that shouldn’t be an invitation to simply ignore the deeper philosophical issues associated with the ad hoc modeling approach.
