See my profile.
A couple of points for you.
1. The climatic models used by the IPCC and the severity of their outcomes range wildly. These estimates range anywhere from .15 deg. cel to 10 deg. cel. Gore and Hansen and others looking for money like the higher end because it causes more fear.
2. The IPCC’s lowest model of .17 deg. cel. is just about in line with actual measured increase over the last 3 decades and no where near the modeled projections they toss around in the media and in their abstracts.
3. The IPCCs models use insane predictors to drive many of their models. For example, using the IPCC’s numbers to determine future GHG output, South Africans should have a per capita income four times greater than Americans by the end of this century. Oh yeah, that also includes North Korea, Libya, Algeria and Argentina. They use grossly distorted projections of global population and world GDP. In addition, there are many noted inconsistencies in their modeled data and known data. For example, in their proxy samples of tree rings, they estimate that 1cm of growth is equal to a certain avg. temp. When known data sets (trees that we can observe) are measured, their proxy sample standards do not even line up with their real world measurements.
4. Just for kicks, here is a direct quote from Hockey Stick co-creator Phil Jones; “We have a 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should i make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”. He was responding to an inquiring Warwick Hughes. I think this shows the NEW Scientific Method.
5.The simple problem with general circulation models is the same general problem with all models. They are simply a function of the hypothesis programmed into them. When ALL of the IPCC’s models are backwards tested, they fail miserably.
I could go on and on with problems in this pseudo-scientific approach, but it seems that once your drinking the KOOL-aid, its too late.