Showing posts with label flawed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flawed. Show all posts
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Climate forecasts may be flawed, says study
Predictions of unprecedented rainfall extremes in the 20th century driven by global warming turned out wrong, a study said Wednesday, casting doubt on methods used to project future trends.
A massive trawl of Northern Hemisphere rainfall data for the last 1,200 years revealed there had been more dramatic wet-dry weather extremes in earlier, cooler centuries before humans set off fossil fuel-driven global warming.
Read more at Yahoo News
Read More......
Labels:
climate change,
flawed,
models
Monday, September 30, 2013
Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report is ‘hilariously’ flawed
“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.” Read more at the Daily Caller...
From Marc Morano at Climate Depot via Australia
Even if the IPCC predictions were 100% correct... why should anyone trust them? ✧ The AGW advocates delight in making shrill claims about sceptics being funded by “Big Oil”, which the advocates believe is a perfectly good reason to dismiss much, if not all, of what they say as compromised. But what’s the difference with the IPCC? It is an organisation that is funded by “Big Green”, comprised of governments desperate to appear politically correct, vested interests from academia and business, and environmental activist groups. What goes for one, goes for the other. By analogy, anything the IPCC says must be regarded as equally compromised. ✧ The only differences, as far as I can see, are that:
From Marc Morano at Climate Depot via Australia
Even if the IPCC predictions were 100% correct... why should anyone trust them? ✧ The AGW advocates delight in making shrill claims about sceptics being funded by “Big Oil”, which the advocates believe is a perfectly good reason to dismiss much, if not all, of what they say as compromised. But what’s the difference with the IPCC? It is an organisation that is funded by “Big Green”, comprised of governments desperate to appear politically correct, vested interests from academia and business, and environmental activist groups. What goes for one, goes for the other. By analogy, anything the IPCC says must be regarded as equally compromised. ✧ The only differences, as far as I can see, are that:
-
Big Green funds the AGW advocates a thousand dollars for every one dollar funding sceptics;
the IPCC shies away from transparency and open debate, whereas sceptics encourage it.
Labels:
climate change,
environmentalism,
flawed,
Global Warming,
IPCC,
report,
U.N.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)














