Most scientists agree on global warming?


Not by a long shot
More number fudging, as demonstrated in this article.

Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are “not a big deal.”

“Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend -- and it isn’t,” says Singer. “Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values -- and they clearly don’t ... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling,” adds Singer.

Singer also had some related thoughts concerning the gloom-and-doom forecasts concerning future temperatures.

Last January, a study in the journal Nature estimated that a doubling of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures anywhere from 1.9 degrees Centigrade to 11.5 degrees Centigrade by mid-century. But Singer says the researchers “varied only six out of many more parameters necessary to model clouds… Their result confirms… that clouds are still too difficult to model and that climate models underlying the Kyoto Protocol have never been validated.”

This is just the latest example of what happens when scientists objectively take a look at the global warming claims. Remember, this is all based on computer models which are notoriously inaccurate.

On a lighter note, I got a kick out of this one.

Notice that these scientists are claiming solar cycles, not human activity, is the cause of "global warming." Changes in the polar icecaps of Mars would seem to support that theory.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sat - August 20, 2005 at 07:37 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved