Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock

The American Thinker ^ | January 16, 2007 | James Lewis

[oldtimer2]

This is the clearest, most easily understood essay about why the climate models can't predict the future weather accuratily that I have ever read.

[saganite]

Uh oh. Another global warming denier! He's an International criminal for daring to dispute the theology. Arrest that man.

[edpc]

The ultimate cop out is when they state waiting for difinitive proof would be too late to change it. How convenient for their agenda.

[longtermmemmory]

fake but accurate science

[River_Wrangler]

Wonder how Colorado is enjoying their "Global Warming" today?

[Delphster]

-15 in Greeley.

[tje]

Excellent article to read on a 32 degree day in Houston. Thanks...

[Maneesh]

Fantastic article. I am a Black Belt in statistics and have always thought this about a phenomenon with so many variables. Any process with more than 10 factors is very difficult to analyze and correlate strongly with 1 factor strongly. In Global warming where we have 100's of factors, none of which we can be absolutely certain about, it is absurd to be able to link warming to one factor. The article explains it very coherently and is an excellent common sense way to explain this to our liberal friends. Oops sorry, I nearly forgot; liberals are devoid of common sense and feel their way through life !

[megatherium]

I would like to take the writer seriously but although he identifies himself as a scientist, I can't seem to find what his credentials, affiliation or even his specialty are. Does anyone know what these are for him?

I get nervous when someone asserts that a problem is too complicated to tackle. He questions the reliability of the current global climate (computer) models, but neglects to mention that these have been succesfully tested on real-world conditions. E.g., if you plug in the initial conditions resulting from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (1991), the models correctly predict the amount and duration of the resulting global cooling.

[Made In The USA]

I go deaf to the global warming crowd incessantly wailing about man's impact on climate. There doesn't seem to be a credible argument for it. The message from the global warmist theology is often anti-American, fails to equally judge other nations, and usually calls for solutions that are not practical at best.

What I do buy into can be expressed as follows: Consumption of resources and generation of waste are inevitable - and acceptable. Our ability to manage resources and pollution can positively affect quality of life.

[Paloma_55]

Human Caused Global Warming

One can make an argument that greenhouse gasses are being generated at enormous levels, but there is no data to argue that GG will cause global warming. In fact, we are likely to go into another ice age and then the question will be "Can we generate enough GG to protect us from freezing to death?"

[frithguild]

nice read

[jimfree]

This is the clearest, most easily understood essay about why the climate models can't predict the future weather accuratily that I have ever read.

It's an argument quite a few of us could have made. Thanks to James Lewis for packaging it!

[SmartAZ]

The biggest problem is that many people can't think except in cliches, and we don't have any cliche to say "I don't know." That's why the headline says "probably a crock" instead of "unknown certainty".

[bcsco]

Ping for later read.

[Popocatapetl]

It is important *now* to separate those individuals who "preach" global warming as "faith", from those who accept a preponderance of the evidence. Why? Because if and when it is obvious that global warming is hooey, the "faith-based' global warming advocates must be purged from any position where they can influence science again. There just isn't any room in science for the arrogance of faith. This is because science is like a game of chess. If you play a game of chess, you play by the rules, or it isn't chess. You can play with chess pieces on what looks like a chess board, but unless you follow the rules, exactly, it isn't chess. In science, you can have scientific equipment and work in a laboratory, but unless you follow each and every rule of science, it isn't science. Importantly, what you accomplish is the same, too. If you play a game of chess by the rules, that is *all* you have done: play a game of chess. And if you conduct a scientific experiment to its conclusion, that, too, is all you have done. People mistakenly assume that because you draw conclusions because of a scientific experiment, by interpolation or extrapolation, that they, too, are "scientific". This is NOT true. They are not. While they *may* follow the course of the experiment, and very closely, unless they, too, explicitly follow the rules of science, then they are NOT part of science. This is the great error that non-scientists invariably make. Some accidentally, many on purpose, because they wish to use the legitimacy of science to back up their non-scientific claims. And in the case of global warning, they have pretended that science gives them the *right* to brow-beat and shout down scientists who reserve judgment until observations justify the hypothesis. So they are as mistaken and anti-science as was the Catholic church in its suppression of Galileo. And this is why they must be purged from positions where they can influence and corrupt science further. And why we should remember their names.

[highimpact]

I get nervous when someone asserts that a problem is too complicated to tackle. He questions the reliability of the current global climate (computer) models, but neglects to mention that these have been succesfully tested on real-world conditions.

Wrong. My brother has a Ph.D in atmospheric science and he BUILDS the computer models that you're talking about. His advice: "don't ever trust a weather forecast more than two days out." If they can't predict local weather patterns more than a couple days into the future, what confidence do you have that they can predict global weather patterns years in advance?

E.g., if you plug in the initial conditions resulting from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (1991), the models correctly predict the amount and duration of the resulting global cooling.

Those models only worked after the fact. Occasionally a computer model will actually "predict" a weather event to some degree of accuracy, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[AFPhys]

Good essay about the high probability that global warming alarmists are simply statistically incompetent.

[Nevernow]

I feel like leaving that image as the desktop for my fiance, who's European and very, "Americans are killing us with global warming."

[showme_the_Glory]

Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock .....Al Gore supports it.