2009 to be among warmest? What about 2008 prediction?

Wow! Read the article's headline below from Reuters. Now follow this link and read last year's headline that originated from the same British scientists--the headline is nearly identical. The prediction in the January 2008 article was that 2008 was going to be "one of the hottest on record." It wasn't. Another failed climate prediction. Now, "British scientists" say it will be one of the hottest in 2009; if they just keep repeating it every year, they're bound to be right eventually, LOL!

Now let's look at the problems with this, as we've done countless times on this blog. You can read about the statistical problems throughout this blog (search: statistics), but it's quite easy to summarize. Just scrutinize the term "long term average."

They define "long term" as the period of 1961 to 1990. The Earth's age is 4.5 billion years. So a period of thirty years is "long term" compared with the age of the planet? No scientist worth their weight would ever make such a proclamation. This is truly JUNK SCIENCE.

LONDON (Reuters) - Next year is set to be one of the top-five warmest on record, British climate scientists said on Tuesday.

The average global temperature for 2009 is expected to be more than 0.4 degrees celsius above the long-term average, despite the continued cooling of huge areas of the Pacific Ocean, a phenomenon known as La Nina.

That would make it the warmest year since 2005, according to researchers at the Met Office, who say there is also a growing probability of record temperatures after next year.

Currently the warmest year on record is 1998, which saw average temperatures of 14.52 degrees celsius - well above the 1961-1990 long-term average of 14 degrees celsius.

[From 2009 to be one of warmest years on record: researchers | Environment | Reuters]