I don't take anything at face value usually. But go and research what he is saying. He is right about the computer models.
-----Original Message----- From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:51 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: FW: [WX-TALK] EPA Climate Change Report Do you really take anything coming out of the Cato Institute at face value? Everything I have ever seen or read by them just happens to exactly, word for word, match the policy of whichever group happened to commission that particular study. (Can't believe I opened this can of worms, but I really had to ask.) Jerry Johnson >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/06/02 10:35AM >>> Since there was such a fuss about the report earlier in the mailing list, I think this would be appropriate to forward along. I also think we can appreciate the message of the article being mostly developers here. Russel A WX Fanatic -----Original Message----- From: WX-TALK General weather discussions and talk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jan Curtis Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WX-TALK] EPA Climate Change Report Hi all: The recent news blitz on the US Federal Government's acknowledgement that recent global warming is indeed caused by humans is a bit premature as noted in the following news item: June 4, 2002 Cato Expert Finds Federal Climate Study in Error WASHINGTON-Today, President Bush downplayed a recent EPA report on global warming. According to the Associated Press, "'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,' Bush said dismissively Tuesday..." Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at Cato Institute and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said, "The report, the so-called 2002 Climate Action Plan, drew heavily from a previous report, the U.S. National Assessment of global warming, which was rushed to publication 10 days before the 2000 presidential election. That report was commissioned by Vice President Gore and Clinton science adviser John Gibbons, who hand-picked the senior scientists constituting the 'Synthesis Team.'" Michaels, also a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, reviewed both reports. He found that the two climate models used as the bases for each performed worse than a table of random numbers when applied to the history of United States temperatures as the greenhouse effect has changed. Michaels concluded, "Continued use of a scientific model that cannot replicate reality is counter to the most basic principle of science." Even so, the National Assessment "Synthesis Team" chose to publicly ignore Michaels' criticism. In private, however, they repeated his calculation and found that the models indeed were no better than random numbers applied to the U.S. temperature history. Of the 2002 Climate Action Plan, Michaels says, "It is clear that the integrity of science would have been better served if this report had never been released. But now that it has, it should focus public discussion on whether or not it is appropriate to use computer models that demonstrably do not work when making public policy." Reference from: http://www.cato.org/new/06-02/06-04-02r-2.html regards, Jan Curtis Wyoming State Climatologist +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- To unsubscribe from WX-TALK send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsub wx-talk" in the body of your message. For more information see http://wxlist.centerone.com or write [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
