-
Recently Written
-
Blogroll
-
Reads
-
memeorandum
-
Admin
Search
the tyee
-
Mar
23
Er….
March 23, 2008 |
Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
Duffy: “From what you’re saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable …”
Marohasy: “That’s right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.” the australian
Kevin Grace was kind enough to point to this bit of climate shock and awe.
The warmists are having a tiny bit of trouble explaining why the oceans are, well, cooling. Of course, if they are able to do that then they will be able to explain why the average global temperature has been declining since 1998.
If we all work together we can save global warming…no, really….Yes We Can, Yes We Can!
Says Ian McEwan:
“Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)” the australian
Comments
4 Comments so far
does this mean the Goracle’s Nobel prize will be returned and refunds given to every naif that sat through his execrable film ?
..will mad(angry) scientist ‘Doc’ Suzuki be kerbing his Prius and trading up to a corvette ?
…will, in the words of Bobby Orr, a hockey stick return to simply being a plain old ‘hockey stick” ?
will i be able to exhale again without a nagging guilt ridden fear i’m smothering Gaia ?
AGW “science” has always been a shelter for quacks, con men and hysterics….the fact they can create a cultist movement based in anti-science just confirms the fact that, in the information age, people are not as savvy as they need to be to recognize a PT Barnum in newage green drag.
‘Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts’
Spot on Ian McEwan. I have long believed these watermelons to be substituting environmentalism for religion and it will take an awful lot of evidence to get them to ‘challenge fundamental precepts’. I am good friends with two watermelons and their ability to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit into their world view astounds me.
Well, the Goracle won a “peace” prize, not a science prize, and as such, it had already been debased by giving it to Yasir Arafat…