Subject: | Re: [OM] [OT] In case you hadn't heard.... |
---|---|
From: | Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:08:49 -0400 |
But you know I don't agree with that and here's the reason why. Despite the claims that "the science is settled" and that "97% of climate scientists agree" neither the "science" nor the computer models based on the "science" have been able to make an accurate climate projection that covers the warming hiatus evident in the temperature observations since about 1998. <http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png> The warming effect of CO2 is readily observable under isolation in a lab. But to predict the response of the real earth one must model a huge array of both positive and negative feedback mechanisms. The fact that these models come nowhere near the earth's actual temperature response (and never have) despite continuously increasing CO2 very clearly says the "science isn't settled". Since the climate models are the only "proof" of catastrophic global warming why would one give any credence at all to projections of disaster some 50 or 100 years into the future when they come nowhere near reality even over a much shorter period? In science the data should rule. Belief in climate models seems to me more like a religion since the data certainly doesn't support them. And it really doesn't matter what 97% of climate scientists think. What matters is the very much smaller percentage of climate guys who build and operate climate models. They should hang their heads in shame as they ask for more grant money for even more research on the already "settled science". Your pocket is being picked directly by these modelers and indirectly by what they're doing to the worlds' cost of energy. Chuck Norcutt (who believes his skepticism is the supported by the data) On 3/24/2014 7:06 AM, Chris Barker wrote: > We have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and wind energy is one of > the viable ways of doing it. -- _________________________________________________________________ Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ |
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] [OT] In case you hadn't heard...., Mike Lazzari |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [OM] [OT] In case you hadn't heard...., Chuck Norcutt |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] [OT] In case you hadn't heard...., Chris Barker |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] [OT] In case you hadn't heard...., Ken Norton |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |