On Mar 17, 1:32 am, "0B0NZ" wrote:
The Washington Post-er Child for Climate Bias

Steve Milloy

March 14, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2240

Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin leads the pack in this year's
contest for biased climate journalism.

Eilperin's March 10 article entitled, "Carbon Output Must Near Zero To
Avert Danger, New Studies Say" has the same sort of journalistic
objectivity that one might expect from totalitarian state-controlled
media.

With nary a critical word about the computer models used to project
increases in global temperature, Eilperin touted two new model-dependent
studies that "suggest that both industrialized and developing nations
must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in
order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and
dry up sources of water worldwide."

"Using advanced computer models to factor deep-sea warming and other
aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon
dioxide, the scientists, from countries including the United States,
Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must
bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from
rising further," Eilperin reported.

But none of the models in the studies-nor for that matter any other
mathematical model of global climate-has proven to be particularly
useful. No model has been validated against historical climate data.

Yes they have. Strike 1.

So
why would any rational person assume that they can be used to predict
future climate or serve as a basis for developing national energy
policy?

As reported in this column last December, global climate models
uniformly predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than
have actually occurred.


The models predict stratospheric cooling. Strike 2.

Such model failure should come as no surprise since they have many
built-in biases, including the unproven assumption that atmospheric
carbon dioxide drives global climate.

And that lie costs you strike 3!

But all the available real-life
data-including 20th century records and ice core samples stretching back
650,000 years-fail to support such a cause-and-effect relationship. The
ice core samples show, in fact, an opposite relationship.

Eilperin, who has long reported on climate for the Washington Post, must
know about the models' problems, but she apparently chooses not to
report it.

In her March 4 Post article, Eilperin mentioned a report by a number of
climate experts from around the world entitled, "Nature Not Human
Activity, Rules the Climate." She even interviewed one of the experts
for her story.

A section of that report, entitled "Climate Models Are Not Reliable"
discusses in plain language how climate models don't consider solar
dimming and brightening, don't accurately control for clouds, don't
simulate the potential feedback effects of water vapor, don't explain
many features of the Earth's observed climate, and don't produce
reliable predictions of regional (let alone global) climate change.

At JunkScience.com, we label climate modeling as PlayStation®
Climatology, with no disrespect intended toward Sony since its
PlayStation games are in fact what they purport to be-just games.


I bet you label evolution that way too.

Not content with ignoring viewpoints she doesn't like, Eilperin goes on
to diminish, if not ridicule critics of her apparent point of view.

Eilperin's March 4 article featured four ad hominem attacks from three
environmental activists, abusing those who question global warming
orthodoxy as members of a "flat Earth society" and participants in the
"climate equivalent of Custer's last stand." If Eilperin wants to poke
fun at those who disagree with her on public policy issues, she ought to
write an opinion, rather than a news column.


And if you want to do science, do science and not commentary. Hey,
publish in scientific journals, not blogs and newspapers.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT), Lloyd
wrote:

At JunkScience.com, we label climate modeling as PlayStation®
Climatology, with no disrespect intended toward Sony since its
PlayStation games are in fact what they purport to be-just games.


I bet you label evolution that way too.


Of course he does.

http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/darwin.htm


--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--

The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm

"Lone Ranger" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT), Lloyd
wrote:

At JunkScience.com, we label climate modeling as PlayStation®
Climatology, with no disrespect intended toward Sony since its
PlayStation games are in fact what they purport to be-just games.


I bet you label evolution that way too.


Of course he does.

http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/darwin.htm

Are you aware that the last ice age was 10,000 years ago. So the earth
is still coming out of this. So warming is natural and nothing we can do
can change it.

--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--

The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm

"Carl Wills" wrote
Are you aware that the last ice age was 10,000 years ago. So the earth
is still coming out of this. So warming is natural and nothing we can do
can change it.

MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN

The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago and like all ice age cycles, it
ended with a spike in temperature with a slow REDUCTION in temperature
after the initial spike that occurred 10,000 years ago.

Since the end of the last ice age, global temperatures have been
DECREASING until the advent of human induced Global Warming.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...rature_Rev_png