By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger
Editor’s Note: This is a small part of a larger article worth reading.
Editor’s Note: This is a small part of a larger article worth reading.
Conclusion:
The three national assessments suffer from common
problems largely related to inadequate climate models and selective scientific
citations. The 2000 assessment used models that were the most extreme ones
available and had the remarkable quality of generating “anti-information.” The
2009 assessment used a very low significance criterion for the essential
precipitation variable. The draft version of the newest assessment employs
operationally meaningless precipitation forecasts.
In all three assessments, the climate models likely havetoo high a climate sensitivity, resulting in overestimates of future change.
In the assessment process, scientists whose professional advancement is tied to the issue of climate change are the authors. Critics participate only during the public comment period, and there is no guarantee that the criticism will alter the contents. For example, the calculation that the residual variance in the first assessment forecasts was greater than the variance of the observed climate data should have been fatal—but, despite that calculation (which was seconded by the most senior climate scientist on the panel that produced it), the report subsequently appeared as if nothing had happened…… To Read More….
In all three assessments, the climate models likely havetoo high a climate sensitivity, resulting in overestimates of future change.
In the assessment process, scientists whose professional advancement is tied to the issue of climate change are the authors. Critics participate only during the public comment period, and there is no guarantee that the criticism will alter the contents. For example, the calculation that the residual variance in the first assessment forecasts was greater than the variance of the observed climate data should have been fatal—but, despite that calculation (which was seconded by the most senior climate scientist on the panel that produced it), the report subsequently appeared as if nothing had happened…… To Read More….
My Take
- As I said all along - Game Boy science! When you only put in the data you choose versus all the data available, then it’s not science. Models are not
'science'! Models are supposed to be tools to aid
science. When we abandon what we see going on in reality and historical
background we have abandoned the search fo r truth, which is what science is
supposed to uncover.
Winston Churchill
once said experts should be on tap, not on top, and scientists were experts - now
they're stooges, and they’re stooges attempting to make policy. When 80 to 90 percent of all studies are
incapable of being replicated the term scientific integrity becomes an
oxymoron, and someone needs to go to jail for fraud.
No comments:
Post a Comment