Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03



    So who are the global warming deniers, the people who treat projections and models as the gospel truth, or the scientists who keep investigating and questioning?

    This report from the BBC leads one to conclude that those who most frequently shout that the scientific “consensus” must drive public policy are the real deniers:

    Scientists say current concerns over a tipping point in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced.

    Danish researchers analysed ancient pieces of driftwood in north Greenland which they say is an accurate way to measure the extent of ancient ice loss.

    Writing in the journal Science, the team found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago.

    They say changes to wind systems can slow down the rate of melting.

    They argue, therefore, that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely.

    I don’t know what the answers are on the movement and cause of global warming, but I do know not to trust people who tell me just to trust them and not to question modeling which is notoriously inaccurate.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    jakee308 | August 6, 2011 at 5:54 am

    When a computer model of the climate is created that can accurately predict the fluctuations and trends in the KNOWN changes over the last hundred years of recorded values, THEN I’ll be willing to accept what it’s results are for the future.

    To date none have. I’ll even let them just predict 50 years. 25 years? The current models (and I use that term loosely) have yet to accurately predict even a years worth of future from past data. Note the claims of a wild hurricane season last year. Didn’t happen.

    So far weather can barely be predicted with certainty at about 10 days. (which is better than in the past but not by much) There still are situations where those predictions fail.

    kobayashi | August 6, 2011 at 7:04 am

    Filed under “Humor, British” –

    Just another chance for Gore to write another book or win another Nobel prize. Nothing more, nothing less.

    “It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.” — Al Gore

    This is a perfect example of a politician who thinks the other guy is always wrong. It’s the “why won’t the other guy give in ?” mentality. We used to call that sort of behavior (i.e. not giving in) as a “principled stand,” but now their “evil” or “terrorists.” The corollary to this is “bipartisanship” when it means the “other guy finally agrees with you.”

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend