Sunday, June 04, 2006

What more do we need to know about it?

The model is more than a half-century old, and if anything, grossly understated the problem:


For decades, global warming has been an issue of contention, even as the data accumulated and more and more researchers formed an ever-larger majority who supported the model as more evidence came to light. Still today, though, there are people who disagree with their conclusions, but the validity of these naysayers’ arguments is looking more feeble by the day.

One of the strongest objections to global warming has been that the satellite data on the lower atmosphere did not agree with the model’s predictions, and that was one of the main issues that the White House’s Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) was tasked to resolve. Resolve it they did. In many places in their extensive report, pretty much the same statement is made:
“[There] is no longer sufficient evidence to conclude that there exists any notable discrepancy between our understanding of recent global average temperature changes and model simulations of these changes.”

Finally, as noted by Science, in an article titled “No Doubt About It, the World Is Warming,” a consensus has been reached for a study commissioned by the White House, done by a group of researchers that included some “researchers who for years had been battling in the literature.”

Unfortunately, Science also reports that:
“The additional support for global warming will not change White House policy, however. Michele St. Martin, spokesperson for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, says President George W. Bush believes that greenhouse gas emissions can be brought down through better use of energy while the understanding of climate science continues to improve.”

No “improvement” is needed. Here’s the latest addition to the voluminous evidence:


But clearly, no amount of evidence will ever be enough for the Bush White House. One wonders why he bothers to spend our money on studies whose results he intends to ignore. Delaying tactic? Oh.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home