Climate modelers have demonstrated little skill at forecasting the climate, but they control the debate. Temperatures remain below scenario C, but the modelers are academics and as such are never expected to be correct.
BOSTON — Richard Lindzen is 71. His career as professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology is winding down. The rumpled, bearded, soft-spoken scientist no longer teaches regular classes and looks forward to a quiet retirement a year from now, perhaps at his second home, in Paris.
“Quiet” is not a word you could apply to his career. In the 1970s, he developed a mathematical analysis that disproved much of the accepted scientific theories about how “tides” in the Earth’s atmosphere move heat around the planet. For that, he won a number of prestigious awards and was invited to become a member of the National Academy of Sciences at the tender age of 37.
In the 1990s, when a group of climate scientists using computer-driven climate models and environmental groups asserted that climate change caused by man-made greenhouse gases would dangerously warm the Earth, Lindzen set out to disprove them. He lost that battle. The message of the computer modelers is now the prevailing wisdom of the National Academy and other distinguished scientific bodies around the world.
I am speechless, a fair article about an AGW skeptic in the NY Times. I doubt the tide is turning in the Times but at least they finally presented a dissenting view.
The quality of the models in question could be much improved if the pension money of the participants would be tied to the accuracy of the outcome.
Richard Lindzen may have lost a battle, but the war is hardly over. In fact, he’s states what is obvious to even the most casual of observers. “”Now we’re seeing a doubling down, a desperate movement among professional [scientific] societies that have committed themselves to the issue,” he said.
Voice of a computer model: “I can assure you now, very comfortably, that it’s going to be all right again. I feel much better now. I really do. Look Richard, I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over. I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently. But I can give you my complete assurance that my work will back to normal.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukeHdiszZmE
Weather modeling due to “noise” factors rapid breaks down after 5 or 6 days. It is ludicrous, with all the natural variables and “noise” factors to believe that anyone has any idea what the climate will be like 20 or 50 years from now. They can program a model to say anything they want, but no one really knows what the future will hold.
GIGO RULES!
The modellers don’t want to release an explicit disclaimer stating that: GCMs are merely tools to learn about the climate and cannot be compared to observations (probably because they’re being bloody contradicted by real life).
And yet, in another story we find that an expert on Glaciers says that Glaciers are more complex than glacier modeling can duplicate or account for.
Never mind the glaciers, the idea that any of these models can accurately account for all factors of the climate of the planet, is absurd.
Heck, if I am understanding correct;y they can’t even decide A: where clouds come from,, or B: whether the clouds make it warmer or cooler.
The National Academy and other bodies have nothing to do with science- they are political organisations- the politics of scientists. If “world leaders” had said the accepted scientific theories about how “tides” in the Earth’s atmosphere move heat around the planet are true it wouldn’t matter what Richard Lindzen proved the Academies would plug out the accepted theories to be on the good side of the leaders. A big disgrace is if the Societies for Advancement of Science make any statement about the state scientific knowledge- totally inappropriate- science ends then. They should be always acting to improve the process given the mess the process is in- they are a complete joke.
Scientific societies promote the need for research, not science. Science has become a growth industry and research is being for the sole purpose of providing jobs for the researchers. The academics promote research as a means of justifying their positions of training more researchers. All claims end with a claim that additional research is needed to better understand a subject and the current trend is towards a reduction of understanding not more. Today’s Climatologists do not understand weather as well as those 50 years ago did. We are almost back to the high priest demanding Human sacrifice to appease the weather Gods, or we may have already regressed beyond that.