The Truth About Green House Gases

SEE HERE Here's a good summary article about CO2. For a pretty good site on the whole climate alarmism fiasco you can CLICK HERE As you may have noticed I just got back from the ICCC6, the International Conference on Climate Change 6 which was help in Washington, D.C. on June 30th and today. The theme of the conference was Restoring the Scientific Method and numerous presenters pointed out the failures of scientific method by the current crop of global warming alarmists, not climate change alarmists, and soon to be ocean acidification alarmists. The climate alarmism is just another scam to try to bilk you out of tax dollars to fund both agenda driven science and develop rationale for new taxes and limiting your energy options. Some of the most damning data was the hard facts about the costs and inadequacies of wind and solar power, so called sustainable or renewable energy. Extraordinarily expensive and basically incapable of doing the job. There were some great papers given. Some of my favorites were those that showed how strong the role of the sun was in explaining almost entirely the warming variations that are always attributed to CO2. There were also some great papers that showed how poorly CO2 explained warming. Dr. William Gray pointed out from the floor at one point that none of the climate models were any good so that averaging them (one of the techniques discussed) didn't make them any better. Dr. Gray is a pioneer in hurricane forecasting and definitely one of the grand old men of the climate science community at 82. (The slide above is from a talk by Dr. S. Fred Singer)

I took the opportunity to talk to Dr. Gray briefly about my experience with computer modeling when I worked for the Navy. I was an expert on submarine detection and used to put slides together with projections about the performance of various sensors and processing systems. I would get question about the projections and the answer "professional judgment" never seemed to satisfy the questioners. So what I did is write a set of computer models and used the models to generate the data giving the computer program a fancy acronym MADAM (Magnetic Anomaly Detection Analysis Model). Then when I was asked where the projects came from I would say the MADAM model. They never asked where the model came from which would have had largely the same answer as before — "professional judgment." So computers play a significant role. It's not GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) but GIGO (Garbage In, Gospel Out) that you have to worry about. Unfortunately, laying down the climate models against real date suggests the first interpretation.