A new refereed journal article reports a study that indicates that computer models predicting climate change are unreliable: http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671
Here too is a collection of recent research that argues that the globe is COOLING. It was assembled by the minority party's of the U.S. Senate's Committee on Public Works and the Environment.
3 comments:
Marty,
Add the results of this study that you reference on global climate models
not agreeing with the data in the referred journal
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671
to the Canadian study that got completely
contradictory results when they used more than one model for the
same phenomena.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/470578
and you will get a picture of how shaky these models
are.
Compare these climate models to a real science like physics
where the predictions of when the next solar eclipse will occur over North America
(for e.g.) and the comparison is startling. Climatology is more conjecture
than science.
Marty,
Did that man who made the statement that Inhofe paid for all those studies that
throw doubt on the IPCC reports ever produce any evidence for this dramatic
pronouncement? If not, then that says volumes about the accusation
and the person making the accusation.
Don
The man never responded.
Perhaps this will convince the average person more:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4474202.ece
The article claims that as retail prices rise on everyday things like food and energy sources, people care far less about global warming, going green and saving the world for their children and grandchildren. They care more about surviving now.
So the average person has to now be more economical by wasting less. The side benefit: they're more green. What made them do it? Their pocketbooks, not Al Gore.
I don't think science will convince the average person. Simple economics probably will.
Post a Comment