CO2 is bad … ORLY?
Ref: Explanation of Green House Gases, by William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
The religion of Climate Change
The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types-even children’s crusades-all based on contested science and dubious claims.
I can agree with this statement. This article shows extensive research into the [lack of] science in the Global Warming debate. He properly mentions the Medieval Warming period (1000AD), which was promptly followed by Little Ice Age. He makes a credible argument for the cause/effect relation to be the opposite of what the church of global warming claims. That changes in global temperature lead changes on atmospheric CO2. This is backed up by ice core data that includes approximately the last million years.
The existence of the little ice age and the medieval warm period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. The organization charged with producing scientific support for the climate change crusade, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finally found a solution. They rewrote the climate history of the past 1000 years with the celebrated “hockey stick” temperature record.
In law, this is known as a Smoking Gun and it is well documented. It is basically rewriting the data to fit the desired outcome. The report that documents this is A. W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Indeed, the computer programs that produce climate change models have been “tuned” to get the desired answer. The values of various parameters like clouds and the concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols are adjusted to get the best fit to observations. And-perhaps partly because of that-they have been unsuccessful in predicting future climate, even over periods as short as fifteen years. In fact, the real values of most parameters, and the physics of how they affect the earth’s climate, are in most cases only roughly known, too roughly to supply accurate enough data for computer predictions.
I’m only a Computer Engineer but I know computers, their software, and what they can do, very well. If a simulation cannot predict near-term trends with any reliability then it certainly cannot be trusted to predict long-term trends. At best, it indicates a fault in either the systems, the heuristics, or the algorithms. In this case, the claim is made that the models were “tuned” to fit the desired answer. This is something that I have long suspected.
A key systemic fact is that all computers are deterministic in nature. Once input A is given then output B will always result. The same input data will always get the same result. If it doesn’t then there is a fault with the system or there exists some randomized input values, which indicates modified inputs. The key point is that current data processing systems, no matter how complex, have to be predictable or the result cannot be trusted.
Mirrored from The Slamlander.
You can comment here or there. This is also mirrored on Dreamwidth and Facebook.
All rights are reserved under US copyright law. More detail may be found on my Disclaimers and Rights page.