The revelations from the UEA on their emails containing information about dubious facts over climate data , seems to have gone past with much of a murmur after the initial rush of media activity.
But in Nature this week there appaear to be backing up some of the claims that the knowledge out there is not as foolproof as scienctis expected it would be , meaning that the climate models that have resulted are also way off the mark.
If this really does turn out to be the case i feel vidicated about my thoughts that the information on how the planet works is very thin and patchy and in reallity the earth is very sphisticated and needs alot more data to be put into it.
we have all the solar data which no one really knows what effects it is having and also the water aerosols in the atmosphere and the effect of it on the movement of heat around the planet or lack of it so as to provide very hot or cold as has been seen this winter.
We still need a lot more detail in the figure work and models that are a lot more dynamic to a host more variable over short and long term projections.
As a layperson in this field of statics and data manipulation i feel that as there are so many gaps in the historical data it is easy to manipulate the data and also arrive at the wrong conclusions as a result .
We have to beware of claims of any type of climate forecasting.