Thanks, but somewhere some such results must have been published or IBD wouldn’t have written that they were not predictive. If no such results, how did Kyoto ever get off the ground?
Not necessarily true, if they got "close enough" by "curve fitting" instead of creating an actual analog of the Earth's dynamic climate system, they could tweak the fudge factors enough to look reasonable. What they published were not "calibrating" runs but "projections" into the future which just happened to coincide with their pre-established conclusions. At no time have they ever used those systems of equations to "predict the past" and thus demonstrate that they are valid.
Baldly put, they lied and forced the model so as to prove what they deeply believed to be the truth. Perhaps they didn't even realize they were lying because the "observer effect" causes most researchers to find exactly what they are searching for, right or wrong.
That "observer effect" is the reason the scientific method requires a vigorous debate among your peers and duplication of results by independent researchers before a theory is accepted as more then a "working hypothesis".
Regards,
GtG
PS There is a vast difference between fitting a mathematical curve to historic data and building an actual model of a natural phenomenon.
Nope. Sorry - Even the modified/revised “warnings” (modified from as recently as 1998) have NOT been correct only ten years later: Hansen predicted (in the late 1990’s) that under his “if no action is taken” scenario (which, after all - IS what has happened from 1998 - 2008!) that temperatures by 2010 would be 1.5 degrees hotter than in the baseline year of 1972.
Well, it's now 2008 ( only two years from his SHORT-RANGE prediction of +1.5 degrees, and he (as always) has failed utterly. Temp's have NOT risen for ten years, are now cooler than they have been since 1996-1997, and show no rising trend at all.
EVEN in the shortest range, his predictions are off by 1/3. And yet we are supposed to believe that his predictions for 300 years are correct - and we are to bankrupt our economy, and condemn billions to cold and starvation without energy, based on his guesses. His gospel of lies.
The main supporter of the treaty is the United Nations whose humble beginnings as an eleemosynary institution was too restrictive for it's big spending, fascist ideals. And so the UN has embarked on a course of developing some kind of world tax (with out any representation on the part of the taxed) with which to fund it's expansion. The underlying appeal in these scheme is fear mongering.
Because of America's singular propensity of extreme generosity in the in the face of any country's disaster and/or hardships, the UN has realized that America's love of altruistic,benevolent, charity can be exploited.
It has only been recently, with the internet's access to all kinds of historical, technical and factual data that we have had the ability to question what has actually been done with money. Or to even question what these people have said about the climate for example. If we hadn't developed this ability, of independently being able to analyze data and to publish instantly on the web our views, the mass media would have remained the last word on the subject.