The truth about climate change

3 thoughts on “The truth about climate change”

  1. These clowns can’t even accurately predict the weather
    2 days ahead of time and they are claiming to predict 100 years
    ahead of time. There in fact has been a short term cooling
    trend. The predictions from NASA and others have been based on
    ill-fitting computer models and not science. The models don’t
    even agree in predicting the future. It is irrelevant that they
    “predict” the past. You can always do that with enough
    parameters

    See for example
    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=040407C

    by Freeman Dysan a very distinguished physicist at the Institute
    for Advanced study who really knows something about this area.
    He writes

    “Freeman Dyson: I am always happy to be in the minority.
    Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be
    sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors
    that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or
    less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to
    believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior
    in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with
    increased CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    Of course there has been warming; there has ALWAYS been warming
    (and cooling). Where does one suppose that Greenland got its
    name. Lief Erikson grew crops. The issue is the alarmist
    prediction of the future based on questionable computer models
    and whether the human component is large or small. Claims are
    based on correlation and even non-statisticians know that
    correlation does not prove causation

    See http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml
    Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
    also http://www.sepp.org

    Like

  2. Cremer: This is the same Freeman Dyson who said:

    “One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas”

    Dyson was a self-pronounced ‘heretic’, but also not an AGW skeptic (‘who really knows something about this area’). Dyson’s skepticism of models is interesting and at times valid, but you can’t pick and choose people’s viewpoints to match your own.

    Like

  3. Predictions and models are not as relevent as observations. There are simple truths that we know… For example, the Ocean is becoming more acidic, which means the level of CO2 is going up. We are trashing the land by wiping out regions that consume a lot of CO2, thereby reducing the amount that we lock away every year. I am not one who puts a lot of faith in predictions. I base my theory on observations. It is clear that things are changing and we are observing obvious changes – coral bleaching being a good example here. These types of events are good indicators that the world is changing. Models and predictions are guesses, so we don’t really know what is going to happen, but we can see what is changing now, and what it means to the human civilization today.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s