It’s a dirty little secret that climatologists definitely don’t want you to know.

Just to start the ball rolling on my behalf. Here is a statement:

Firstly:            Scientists aren’t Climatologists.

Secondly:        Climatologists aren’t Scientists.

Of course I’m neither. I’m an engineer. Which personally gives me a better balance than either of these two premises.

Scientists come up with theories and climatologists refer to models.

As an engineer I distrust both of them. (I’m being balanced here). As a Marine Engineer I can’t trust either. I deal in fact. If a scientist were to tell me  theoretically, that the engine standing next to us, that I was going to start,  would give me twice the power, I would tactfully suggest HE presses that start button. (FE would head for his lifeboat).

The same would be if I was told “that models suggest”, I would exit stage left just as quickly.

In my trade, denigrated as we are, I want hard fact not supposition.

Now I’ve got that of my chest, have a read of why a satellite, monitoring solar irradiance is a cause for concern.  

The problem with TSI

And the science is settled? It’s an interesting read.