... so says Judah Cohen, the director of seasonal forecasting at an unspecified atmospheric and environmental research firm, in an article in today's New York Times.
Strangely missing from the article - as from so many articles advocating AGW - are some important points:
1.) the paltriness - 6% - of man's contribution to greenhouse gases;
2.) the state of disarray of the scientific case that man's generation of greenhouse gas - the 6% - is the cause of global warming; and
3.) in the unlikely event man's greenhouse activity is causing global warming, what we're all supposed to use in place of fossil fuels to heat and light our houses, distribute food and goods, get to work, power manufacturing and business, etc., while we wait for a magical, mystery fuel to appear.
I would be remiss if I did not point to the latest, significant addition to item two: an analysis - h/t Watt's Up With That - which reveals serious weaknesses in the global circulation models relied upon by the IPCC and their pronouncements as to man's culpability in a 130 year (remind me how old Earth is?) warming trend.
Meanwhile, for the convenience of those of us experiencing the more local manifestation of global warming, here is the Providence radar to track the blizzard and a link to RIDOT highway cameras to check out road conditions.
from the link -
…we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.
Yeah, how soon they forgot Mandelbrot. See James Glieck - Chaos - Making A New Science or Benoit Mandelbrot himself on fractals in nature and fractals in finance. The latter ought to be hunbling to the quants who drove the wheels off the markets, but their egos are probably too big for it to register. See also Nassim Nicholas Taleb - The Black Swan.
PS - greetings from southwest Florida, where the schadenfreude is coming down at about 2" per hour.
Posted by: chuckR at December 26, 2010 9:33 PMIf we had this snow in August your post would make more sence for global warming, even though it is climate change that is the problem.
I can not understand why conservatives dislike science?
Posted by: Swazool at December 27, 2010 10:39 PMI can not understand why conservatives dislike science?
I'm conservative and I LIKE science. I dislike BS and that is what Climategate and subsequent developments have revealed AGW 'calculations' as. Swazi, ol' swot, why don't you read up on Lysenko - pseudoscience in the service of political power aggrandizement is not new.
Posted by: chuckR at December 28, 2010 2:04 PM