As in
all things computer related, what comes out is only as good as what
goes in. When you use unproven theories and/or hypotheses as fact
as a basis for your climate modeling,
fail to take into account the basic, everyday vagaries in weather,
and are seriously
pushing an agenda, is it really that much of a surprise when things
don't turn out like you wanted – er, planned – er, thought
they would?
Turns out 114 climate predictions, made in the 1990's, out of 117, were wrong. I know, you're shocked!!! That's right, ladies and gentlemen, only three were even remotely close to be accurate. The other 114? Well, let's just say they predicted twice the amount of warming than actually occurred.
“Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.
'It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models,' climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
But other scientists say that's making a mountain out of a molehill.
'This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist,' Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. 'The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that,' she added.
The climate models, Fitzpatrick said, will likely be correct over long periods of time. But there are too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over two decades.”
Huh?! How can something be accurate in the long-term when it's consistently been wrong in the short-term? And not just wrong, but wrong wildly. It's always been my understanding that the more variations involved with something, coupled with the absolute randomness of their occurrence, the less predictable that something becomes – especially in the long-term.
I've said this for years now, but it bears repeating – How am I supposed to believe in “global warming” - how do I accept what they say the climate will be like 50 to 100 years from now - when they can't even predict the weather for three days from now with anything but the smallest semblance of accuracy?
Turns out 114 climate predictions, made in the 1990's, out of 117, were wrong. I know, you're shocked!!! That's right, ladies and gentlemen, only three were even remotely close to be accurate. The other 114? Well, let's just say they predicted twice the amount of warming than actually occurred.
“Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.
'It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models,' climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
But other scientists say that's making a mountain out of a molehill.
'This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist,' Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. 'The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that,' she added.
The climate models, Fitzpatrick said, will likely be correct over long periods of time. But there are too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over two decades.”
Huh?! How can something be accurate in the long-term when it's consistently been wrong in the short-term? And not just wrong, but wrong wildly. It's always been my understanding that the more variations involved with something, coupled with the absolute randomness of their occurrence, the less predictable that something becomes – especially in the long-term.
I've said this for years now, but it bears repeating – How am I supposed to believe in “global warming” - how do I accept what they say the climate will be like 50 to 100 years from now - when they can't even predict the weather for three days from now with anything but the smallest semblance of accuracy?
But hey, if the "inventor of the internet" says the ice caps will be gone by 2013, it must be true, right?
~ Hunter
No comments:
Post a Comment