I can only contribute an expression by Isaac Asimov, "The absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence".
I wonder how many "computer models" were attempted before one was obtained
that would produce the required results?
Skeptical of skeptics
Ed G
===============
At 11:16 AM 15/04/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>For those FWers who, like me, are still prepared to be sceptical about the
>findings of the IPCC report, here's an extract from an article in today's
>Sunday Times by Melanie Phillips.
>
><<<<
>[it is said that] there are no more than 10 active scientists in the world
>who disagree with the notion of human-induced climate change.
>
>But there are thousands of scientists who disagree with the prediction of
>climatic catastrophe caused by human agency and who are utterly dismayed by
>what they see as the falsehoods of Kyoto and the IPCC report. Many have
>signed statements saying so; these are never reported. and some on the
>sceptic side are very eminent indeed.
>
>Dr Richard Lindzen of the Masachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the
>foremost experts on atmospheric science, says there is no evidence that
>greenhouse gases could dispupt the climate. In a withering put-down of the
>"absurd" Kyoto Protocol, he describes it as "very much a children's
>exercise of what might possibly happen" prepared by a "peculiar group" in
>the IPCC, almost all of whom have "no technical competence".
>
>Dr Jan Veizer, the renowned geologist, has produced a definitive
>reconstruction of the world's climate history, which says there is no
>correlation between cold and warm periods and low and high levels of CO2.
>Indeed, there were long periods when rises in CO2 were accompanied by a
>drop in the average temperature. Some scientists say this report alone
>sounds the death knell for the man-made global warming theory.
>
>. . . Climate change is made up of a vast number of contributory factors,
>to which CO2 is but one minute player. The IPCC report is a product of
>computer modelling . . . which then produces a guesstimate which merely
>replicates a premise, however flawed. . . . The IPCC report admits admits
>that, of the 12 factors thought to influence climate cahnge, 9 are very
>poorly understood. It also admits that certain key changes indicating
>global warming have not yet occurred.
>>>>>
>
>So I repeat what I wrote before: "The jury is still out".
>
>Whether the IPCC report will turn out to be plausible or not as the
>evidence accumulates over the next decade or so, there is no doubt
>whatsoever that it has been captured by a bunch of politicians (starting
>with Margaret Thatcher) and senior bureaucrats who have little else to do
>with their time. The European Commissioners, who have dismally failed in
>almost every key policy of the EEC are presently junketing themselves
>around the world's capitals trying to persuade other politicians to become
>equally hysterical.
>
>Keith Hudson
>___________________________________________________________________
>
>Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
>6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>
