Problems with Global warming models
Posted by Administrator
on July 16, 2007, 6:38 am
in General ( General)
SCIENCE Magazine July 6, 2007 page 28: A article entitled –Another Global Warming Icon comes under Attack– by a group of mainstream atmospheric scientists is disputing a rising icon of global warming, and researchers are giving some ground. The article makes the statement, “The range is only half as large as they (the mainstream atmospheric scientist) would expect it to be, considering the large range of uncertainty in the factors driving climate change…. Somehow the three researchers say, modelers failed to draw on all the uncertainty inherent in aerosols so that the 29th century simulations look more certain than they should.” In that conclusion we agree, our studies show a definite bias in many past models, where data is manipulated to make the point of the researchers.
The article concludes with the statement, “I don’t want certain interests to clam that modelers are dishonest, says Kiehl.” I am not so sure. Many of the environmental researchers are opinions board on religious fanaticism. The public needs to face the fact that they are either dishonest or stupid and the scientific community needs to police its own much more vigilantly. There is a definite attitude that if research produces a view contrary to the environmentalist view that humans cause all the problems in the universe, that those researches must be ridiculed and denounced. Disagreement is the pathway to truth. It is also a fact on the other side of the model that none of the models took into consideration the dominant source of CO2 on the planet, which is metabolism, or respiration.
Post from : http://www.northpacificresearch.com/blog/index.php
Printed from : http://www.northpacificresearch.com/blog/index.php?id=104