Global Warming Revisited – Inconvenient Truth or Swindle
Some of you may remember a previous post on global warming. In recent weeks I’ve seen an enhanced interest in climate change and have experienced some additional arguments against the much trumpeted predicted catastrophic weather changes. Let me rephrase that… the weather changes could possibly be true, but the cause of these changes are far from proven. In fact there are many that have proven the popular view as false.
A KSL News article is what originally sparked my attention again. Then one of my favorite authors penned an article which was not really enlightening, but well thought out and expressed. The entire article is a good read (seriously… go read it), but a few highlights are below.
All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the future, they can’t even predict that past.
That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the 1970s or 1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s, they project results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known climate data for those decades.
In other words, the models don’t work. The only way to make them “work” is to take the known results and then fiddle with the software until it finally produces them. That’s not how honest science is done.
Is it true? I didn’t search for verification of the above, but I have found verification of the following quote with an article based on NASA findings.
Science isn’t done by consensus. It’s done by rigorous testing. When a hypothesis — or a computer model — fails to correspond to the actual real-world data, you throw it out.
That’s what the real climate scientists are doing. They have found, in recent years, a very close correspondence between global climate and variations in the amount of radiation the Earth receives from the Sun.
The light and heat we get varies depending on the distance and position of the Earth and the amount of radiation the Sun puts out. The Earth’s distance and position seem to determine the big cycles — the Ice Ages — and the Sun’s variations seem to determine the smaller climate cycles.
Some might argue that we should protect against global warming even if it’s not really caused by humans. I would be completely fine with that argument if it didn’t come as an hindrance to business and the American economy.
A co-worker commented, “I think it’s very arrogant of the human race to think we can have any effect on the global weather patterns of the Earth.” I would have to agree.