Friday, May 25, 2007

From A Tangled Web


Have a read here and find out how a 15 year girl from Portland, Maine managed to outsmart the climate modellers of the United Nations!

In essence, she applied common sense and science, stuck to the basic data, and has thrown a spanner in the works of the IPCC models! (You know the ones I mean, the sort that can "predict" the weather in 50 years whilst meterologists struggle to predict it three days ahead)

The IPCC predicts..."As a result of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia and, in New Zealand, in Northland and some eastern regions."

Young Ms Byrnes explains..." just looking at my ENSO 3.4 chart when I was responding to Eduardo's email. It looks like the ENSO has been positive for 95% of the last 6 years. Since Austrailia experiences warm and dry conditions during positive ENSO, six years of drought would not surprise me. But it is headed negative very quickly now, so you might want to dust off your umbrella.

The Australian Press comments..."THE El Nino weather system has run its course and the weather bureau says the worst drought in a century could be coming to an end, as heavy rain soaked parched southeastern Australia. Inland NSW and north-east Victoria enjoyed heavy rainfall today, with reports from 20-30mm falling in some areas and as high as 53mm in country Victoria, Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) senior forecaster Phil King said.

Say it ain't so! As the article concludes...

"Well, if the drought in Australia and New Zealand is indeed ending – and, certainly, early-season rains and snowstorms do not yet prove this – one must question the models being used by the IPCC to forecast climate change in the future. After all, if a long-range forecast issued April 7 ends up being wrong five weeks later, why on earth would we trust these folks from the U.N. to be able to accurately predict what’s going to happen next year, or fifty to a hundred years from now?

Maybe more important, should we actually enact policy changes that could negatively impact the economy on the recommendations of a group that can’t accurately predict events beyond just a month and a half?

Of course, the other likely more pivotal side of this revelation is whether the scientists involved are just incompetent, or willfully malfeasant. As Kristen wrote in her e-mail message to me, “They were probably trying to scare the people of Australia into signing Kyoto.”

Well, if this is the case, then aren’t all involved participating in a shameful scam? Think about it. If this is indeed about getting developed nations to agree to the Kyoto Protocol, isn’t the U.N. best served by predicting calamitous climate events regardless of their merit in order to scare the public into complacent support? If there is evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case – for example, proof of errant predictions by the IPCC – shouldn’t the veracity and integrity of the information emanating from this organization be much more thoroughly scrutinized?"

Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 at 09:07AM by David Vance

No comments:

Post a Comment