Dec 10 2006
Global Warmers “Adjust Predictions”
The scientific problem for the Global Warming crowd is that while the World’s temperatures have been rising for 400 years or so, they have no strong evidence it is being caused by human activity. Is there a human component? Probably. But the questions is whether we are responsible for 60% of the phenomena or 6%. Because if it is the latter then changing our behavoir is a waste of time and effort and we better determine other ways to respond. My favorite proposal is to establish desalination plants on the West Coast of Africa and pump water into the sub Sahara region and create vast new forests and grasslands.
Anyway, the global warming alarmists have been battered in revent years as their theories have succumbed to poor scientific quality. Their models produce junk that is only good for making fantasy Hollywood movies. And it has been shown they misused statistical models and the recent dramatic rise on temperature was a math error. Now they are regrouping again and making more corrections to their false claims, demonstrating clearly that their critics where ‘more correct’ than the alarmists:
Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
…
Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.
I will make some predictions for these poor folks. First, they are not done having to correct their models. Second, the biggest danger we face is listening to people who overstate their knowledge and over react to unreliable information. For example:
The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.
Note this adjustment is to their ‘upper estimate’, or their worse case scenario. This means the nominal predicted level must be little change (given the error bars on their results to date). The reporting would have been much more honest if they used the medium predictions, not the worst case.
Interesting. I always find it amusing how no environmentalist will ever comment upon the fact that temperatures were considerably higher in at least some places of the world about 900 years ago or so. It’s as if they will not understand that by claiming something to be absolutely certain when it is not undermines credibility. Very irritating indeed.
Whenever there’s something that makes moral sense, such as “The rich people aren’t only having a much better time than we are but their consumption is destroying the world” or the issue with secondary smoking or obesity. Indulgence of any kind is morally deplorable – according to many – and it is therefore very tempting to condemn the people who are enjoying themselves (and support it by exaggerated scientific evidence).
Maybe someone should call Laurie David to get off the Gulfstream IV.Just tell her Global Warming has been cancelled.
Upcoming United Nations report: mankind’s impact on global warming has been overestimated…
Al Gore and other global warming alarmists won’t be too happy to hear about this:
Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.
The UN Intergovernmental Pan…
One only has to look at the various elements that Warming fanatics use to support their ‘claims’ to realize that any of those could have exactly the opposite meaning.
A good example is the amount of CO2 in core ice in the Antarctica. It’s been a while since I’ve looked at the data, but essentially they drilled down so many feet and measured the CO2 in old ice. Well in doing this, they found out that the amount of CO2 in the ice closer to the surface was higher than the amount in the deeper ice. Then they conclude that the newer ice represents the time since man has been user fossil fuels.
Well, Duh…… It could have a whole lot more to do with the age of the ice than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe old ice over 400 years old has just been completely depleted of any CO2 and the new ice just holds CO2 for a while then it begins to deplete. Anyhow, they sure can’t make any absolute scientific determination of anything using that type data. Besides, maybe all that ice below so many inches was put there in one extremly bad snowy year and wasn’t “built” up over millions of years.
Can’t those people use any reasoning skills at all?
Almost all their scientific predictions can be questioned legitimately this way.
Higher sea temps this year, more hurricanes. Their prediction, did it happen? Well, the sea temps didn’t rise as much as predicted. Why? wasn’t their ‘model’ correct? It couldn’t even predict sea temps one year out? How the hell is it supposed to predict something 10 or a hundred years out?
It’s all about money. Most things are. These people won’t get grants and donations without scare tactics. And the gullible fall for them every time. But it is hilarious that they have to back down this way.
I think the biggest problem for the ozone in the environment was cutting down the rain forests in Brazil. I really think we need to reforestation in a lot of areas and as much as we can. The timber companies do this because it is in their best interests to do this for future profit. The Greens don’t think about all the forest fires and don’t want al the scrub removed to help prevent these fires. They would be better served to take this into consideration. But then there is no money in this solution. I have no patience with these people saying fossil fuel is causing global warming and trying to predict what the weather will be like in a hundred years when they can’t predict what it will be like next week.
We could be in for significant global cooling if projections for sun spot cycle 25 are correct.
I’ve found one of the best resources for debunking many of the wild claims of the GW alarmists is World Climate Report. It’s extremely well researched and very interesting reading with archives going back a couple years, covering just about every aspect of the GW debate.
This Is Why We Don’t Take Global Warming Seriously…
I tell you, the global warming crowd just can’t make up their mind. First, it was man causing global warming. Now, it turns out that it’s not man (and his use of cars) at all, it’s the cow.
Al…
……
CP
Global cooling again?
The Inconvenient Cow…
Kofi Annan, in his last action as UN Secretary General, has decided to impose sanctions on the sun for emitting excessive solar rays for the past few decades. …