- May 20, 2009
- 144,499
- 66,898
- 2,330
Several times now I have used the Bernie Madoff analogy in discussing the state of the art of AGW Modeling. The models have been impervious to reality. For example, there's a news report that states the oceans are absorbing more "warming" than was modeled and the models continues unaffected by the new reality.
It's like a stock scammer promising an annual 10% after tax return. You review his model and point out that you're in a 50% tax bracket. He revises the model and sends it to you still showing the same 10% after tax return.
Now, finally, after there having been no discernible warming these past 15 years (hide the decline) reality has finally made it impossible for the IPCC to continue its scam -- so they revised their models.
Had they bothered to do even one single experiment, they would have realized that an additional wisp of CO2 has no discernible, long term affect on climate.
That's why we reject "consensus"
Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
It's like a stock scammer promising an annual 10% after tax return. You review his model and point out that you're in a 50% tax bracket. He revises the model and sends it to you still showing the same 10% after tax return.
Now, finally, after there having been no discernible warming these past 15 years (hide the decline) reality has finally made it impossible for the IPCC to continue its scam -- so they revised their models.
Had they bothered to do even one single experiment, they would have realized that an additional wisp of CO2 has no discernible, long term affect on climate.
That's why we reject "consensus"
Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
