it seems they confused 2035 and 2350 and made some unsubstantiated claims.
the IPCC is taking a lot of potshots these days.
the sad thing is that all these silly errors are blunting the general consensus about the effects of global warming.
update: oops, sorry about 'anthropomorphic', i meant 'anthropogenic'. i have trouble with these polysyllabic words.
2 comments:
They were actually predicting the weather in 2350? Amazing!
Rajeev -- there is more than one unanswered question about so-called anthropogenic global warming. Consensus is not a highly valued concept in science -- people like Copernicus, Galileo, Heisenberg and Einstein all went against the prevailing scientific consensuses of the time. The big questions (from a National Review article by Kevin Williamson: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTZmMGYzNzRiMmFkZTFlMjllYmJkOTc2NzIyYTVmMjI=) relating to global warming are:
1. Is the planet getting warmer? [Probably true over the long run though there has been a cooling trend since 1998]
2. Is the planet getting warmer due primarily to human activity? [Probably not]
3. Are the consequences of the planet getting warmer going to be overwhelmingly catastrophic? [Probably not]
4. Is an economically efficient and politically feasible response to cool the planet possible? [Probably not]
Other global warming stuff of interest:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDVlYTQ0MmNiMzE4OTk2MjAzZjhiNTNiYzU1YTQyMmU=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzYyOTVhZTAzNTFlN2VmM2EyMDgxZWIxOTAzNmViZGY=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTk4ZmVjYzUyMGMwMTJlOGM0ZTY5OWJiOGJmMmQyN2E=
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2RlNDFjZDNjNzdkYzBjMGUxNTA0ZDlmYTZlM2VjMTY=
Post a Comment