oh yes, because that is indeed the issue ... the
cover
on Gore's
book
not the uncanny accuracy of the models so far, not the 90% plus consensus on the science, not the overwhelming evidence that keeps growing each day
no sir...
you go on looking at the cover of Gore's book ...
and yes, i guess it could be just a coincidence that the past 200 years of unprecedented CO2 growth and global warming just happen to coincide with the Industrial Revolution
anything's possible
it's funny how you guys will spend all day with your nose one inch from the data so you don't have to look at the big picture
Let's look at some facts:
1) the geological comparison of co2 and temp from ice core samples show that temp rises hundreds of years BEFORE co2 rises, suggesting that rising co2 is an epiphenomenon of temp rising, not the cause. This time lag has not been refuted, nor explained, by even diehard GW advocates. It is simply ignored.
2) the IPCC report (the REPORT, not the dumbed down summary for bureaucrats) admits that models of GW are flawed, don't include carbon feedback loops or cloud contributions, and don't include oscillations like El Ninos...all critical flaws considering that the models are expected to do something no climate model is intended to do, namely, predict short term climate change occurring in less than a century (which really makes them glorified meterological forecasts and not climate models at all)
3) the report has a 90% confidence level for its predictions which, for peer reviewed scientific articles, means that their conclusions should be tossed into the circular file as worthless. Try to get the FDA to approve a drug with a 90% chance that it will work. By convention, only conclusions stated to a 95% certainty or greater are publishable. Of course, that's moot here, since their is no statistical calculation in the report to justify a "90%" confidence level anyway. No such calculations can be done for futurologiy (The Patriots have a 93.9% chance of covering the spread Sunday --- sounds stupid doesn't it?) Only Spock could get away with that --- Captain, I estimate our chance of survival as one in 1,276,567.
4) the atmospheric models used for GW are similar in application to the hurricane prediction models which have been staggeringly off base recently; again, this is ignored. If we can't predict MAJOR atmospheric disturbances over a SMALL region ONE year in advance, how can we predict a subtle change in the whole planet 100 years hence to a 90% certainty? Andy, don't listen to 'experts', use your own brain...does this make any sense to you? You don't strike me as someone who would swallow what "experts" say without question in any other arena, why this one?
5) there isn't a good correlation between co2 and temp even in this century, although GW enthusiasts explain this by the "cooling forces" of Mount Pinatubo and other volcanic activity which throws the recent curves off --- these cooling effects, incidentally, were the same effects that lead these same Einsteins to forecast a new ice age in the 1970s. They may be right, I don't know, but the situation isn't nearly as cut and dry as you say. Besides, the association of temp and co2 may be simply post hoc ergo propter hoc, two unrelated events linked by a common third variable, such as solar activity
Read the reports, rather than simply appealing to "consensus" and "authority"; the debate is far from settled. I am no climatologist, but when the people say in the reports that their models are "flawed" and prone to significant error in the short periods of time involved, how much of an expert to you need to be?
Contrary to your previous posts, my status as a brain surgeon means nothing. If you ever read my books, I freely admit that we are not the intellectually gifted people that our image projects. Most of us are dimwits...seriously, we drill holes in peoples skulls to suck out blood clots and tumors, it really isn't all that demanding intellectually. it takes gall and arrogance, but not genius. I know some pretty stupid neurosurgeons, trust me. I have no standing professionally to make climate arguments at all, I am simply appealing to common sense.
When someone tells me to change my lifestyle based on computer models that don't include the effects of clouds for crying out loud, I mean, exactly how gullible or expert do I need to be to fathom that floater of an idea? Do you have to be Isaac Newton do distrust a climate model that
doesn't account for cloud cover??????
Read the IPCC report in its entirety. Not very convincing.
