As I've said before, when the computer models can predict next weeks weather then I might start listening to the models. Right now of course they can't model a "blocking high" or "el nino" so tell me again why we need to sink billions to thwart something thats very existence much less cause is so very far from clear? From FrontPage:
...That's right! Al Gore wants Congress to impose a tax that could be considered a tax on climate. He describes his new tax as "putting a price on carbon."
And, by the way, the new name for global warming is "climate change," acknowledging the fact that thermometers register downward trends as well as upward trends.
The warmest year in the past century was 1934, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999 and 1993. Four of the top 10 are from the 1930s, before auto emissions were a factor, while only three are from the last 10 years. As S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery point out in their latest book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years (2007), "That there has been no warming trend in the United States since the 1930s seriously undermines claims that the effects of global warming are already being felt in the United States." S. Fred Singer is Distinguished Research Professor at George Washington University and is author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs. Dennis T. Avery is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute and author of several books.
Most of those individuals known as "global warmers" have consistently relied upon the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as their reference point. The IPCC Report (1995) claims they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming trend. Singer and Avery claim this term "human fingerprint" was inserted for "political not scientific reasons."
The IPCC Report was challenged as lacking a scientific basis on January 28 by a former chief of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), Dr. John S. Theon. He "slammed the computer models used to determine future climate, claiming they are not scientific in part because modelers 'resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.'" Dr. Theon was joined by Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, in stating, "The computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming are fundamentally flawed."
Citing procedures described in the IPCC Report they noted that there was no scientific forecast of the changes in the earth's climate. The only forecasts were based on the opinions of some scientists. An audit of the procedures described "clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting," Theon and Armstrong said. In all the succeeding forecasts made by IPCC "scientists," the same 72 violations of scientific principles were repeated....(more)