To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to: Info@NorthPacificResearch.com

 

Climatology and Accuracy

An article in the March 9, 2007, issue of Science Magazine, the journal of the American Association of Scientists, on page 1351, states “The 2006 hurricane season was looking grim. Three hurricanes ripped across Florida during the 2004 season. Four hurricanes including Katrina, had ravaged the Gulf Coast in 2005. Now meteorological signs were unanimous in foretelling yet another hyperactive hurricane season, the eighth in 10 years. But the forecasts were far off the mark. The 2006 hurricane season was normal and no hurricanes even came anywhere near the United States or the Caribbean.”

Note the phrases, “unanimous in foretelling,” and the last sentence, which shows the value of that opinion. In fact, if that statement is correct, it understates that conclusion because during a “normal year,” what ever that is, several hurricanes strike the US and the Caribbean. Thus, the 2006 hurricane season was well below normal. Those with a normal memory may recall that the 2005 hurricane season was used as evidence for global warming and an example of what the future will bring.

Why is this being done? Are these people stupid? Are they uneducated? Probably not. Are they overzealous? Are they arrogant? Many are. We have all heard about corporate greed. Does scientific greed exist? Probably so. The more noise and dire predictions they can make about earthquakes, tsunamis, meteor impacts, the more research money that becomes available to them. Remember this is supposed to be a country governed by the people, and for the people. Thus, whatever one can do to get the public excited opens the federal coffers and research money flows; too bad, but true.

Presently we have the media, and many politicians, using the same term, “unanimous opinion,” about predicting global warming, 10 to 100 years from now. By their own admission, the unanimous opinion of climatologists is obviously not something we can accept as absolute truth. If their unanimous opinion is not accurate from one year to the next, how can we make important decisions on the future of global climate? Let me suggest, carefully. There are many things about global climate we do not know. But, what we do know is that the problem is complex, and has no one simple solution, like industrial pollution. There are greater producers of atmospheric carbon dioxide than industry. If the problem is as critical as science and the media believes, then it demands at complete and accurate remedy, which deals with all of the major contributors to global climate change and the issues surrounding the dilemma.


By D J Dodds



Page :  1 
 
To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to Info@NorthPacificResearch.com