WEATHER
(webdictionary.co.uk): the meteorological conditions: temperature and wind and clouds and precipitation;

(Encarta. msn): the state of the atmosphere with regard to temperature, cloudiness, rainfall, wind, and other meteorological conditions.

(dictionary.net): The state of the air or atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness, or any other meteorological phenomena; meteorological condition of the atmosphere;

CLIMATE
(en.wikipeada.org): Climate is the average and variations of weather over long periods of time.

(en.wikipeada.org), citing IPCC as follows: Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather”, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (FCCC):
__Has not any definition on “CLIMATE”, but says that
__”CLIMATE CHANGE means the change of climate …”!!!!

NOTE:
(1) Both terms are layman terms.
(2) For scientific work, the referred weather definitions are of little help, as the “meteorological conditions” at a specific time is a “composition” of many dozen, if not hundred parameters.
(3) If weather is not properly defined it is hopeless to define climate as average weather.
(4) Defining climate as weather statistis, is not very helpful anyhow, as weather-statistics remain weather-statistics.

PS: Only recently this site discussed on : May 23rd, 2007 : Global Warming or Climate Change; which shows how important are correct and meaningful definitions:
__’global warming’ makes sense, as rising temperatures on a global basis can be explained as “global warming”; while
__”climate change’ as introduced by IPCC and FCCC is a hopeless term; because one question must be answered first in a meaningful way:
__What is “CLIMATE”???
It is fantastic what James Hansen and his colleagues have achieved over the last 20 years without demonstrating that they are able to define in scientific terms what they are talking about.
Indeed an unbelievable success! A unique miracle!! Lasting for ever?
UNQUOTE

Certainly a lot more research is needed – which would include more studies of reality vs. computer games – oops – models.

The big picture here is that the instrument record started at the coldest period of the last 8,000 years. The last 8,000 years would be the time of, what? Oh yeah, civilization…

Thermodynamics should be prerequisite to any “climate” class in any university. Of course the High Priests of AGW would never go for that – Education is the cure.

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/06/nasa-doe-and-myth-of-neutrality.html

Some comments:

1) “Discount rates” are what people choose when evaluating different courses for fiscal action. Since they are a choice, there is no single correct answer for what the discount rate should be (or should have been).

2) Conversely, gross world product (GWP) is a measurable quantity. (Although it can be measured in several different ways, such as purchasing power parity, PPP, or monetary exchange rate, MER.) Therefore, GWP can truly be predicted, and the predictions checked for accuracy.

3) The IPCC has not made ANY predictions of either world temperature or GWP. Only people who are either ignorant or dishonest think the IPCC has made any predictions of either variable:

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html

4) Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper made predictions of average world surface temperature to 2100, in Science magazine, based on the IPCC Third Assessment Report. Their predicted temperatures are very likely too high:

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2007/01/responses_to_dr.html

5) The IPCC TAR reported economic literature projections on GWP to 2100. Those literature projections are very likely much (much!) too low. I predict they will be too low by approximately a factor of 100 by the year 2100:

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2004/10/3rd_thoughts_on.html

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2004/01/why_social_secu.html

Conversely, I find it fascinating how many people seem to have much greater faith in model predictions of what the world economy will do in the next century than in model predictions of what the climate will do over the same period.

It would be interesting to compare the accuracy of predictions of discount rates to predictions of temperature trends.

Amazing the strides the Bush administration has taken toward lowering the bar of what passes with some for “wisdom”. A few more years and the ability to tie your own shoelaces in the morning will see you proclaimed a seer.

Assuming there exists an ideal climate, then no matter what that climate is, we need to technology to get there and then stabilize. A prerequisite to changing climate in a conrolled manner is the ability to prevent accidental climate change, which is what we are experiencing today.

Secondly, to date nobody expecting a richer world under a new climactic regime has stepped up to cover the economic losses of those who will be disadvantaged.

Should these cost/benefit skeptics be called cost/benefit deniers?