Posted on 10/06/2015 10:54:05 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says…
(Excerpt) Read more at joannenova.com.au ...
I hope he has a GREAT, WORLD CLASS security service!
There are trillions of dollars at stake in the Glo-Bull Warming Scam!
God Bless the Aussies!
Me. I'm surprised. I'm surprised progressive liberal climatologists weren't even more wrong.
But that's just me I suppose.
nearly as far off as algore and Obama!
OZ achievement Ping!
Nice one, but won’t make any difference, the agenda is everything.
(The ends justify the means)
Science is not based on secret formulas and arcane rituals, it is not a Masonic cult whose truths are known only to the few. Science, properly understood, is a method of protecting ourselves from our own all-too-human tendencies towards self-delusion, hubris, wishful thinking, despair, optimism and oversimplification. One can argue about what is and is not science. I have never seen a really cogent argument for global warming, but whatever it is, it isn't science.
Whether it is religion, ideology, a posture, a pose, a mass delusion, or neo-lysenkoism depends on one's view of the elephant. To call it "science" is to misapprehend it completely.
This has been talked about before, about 8 years ago someone pointed out that the models had a hard plugged sensitivity bias built in. Massive Positive feedback bias.
Moscow Rules, here at home.
It won’t change anything.
The True Believers will label him a heretic, and call for his incarceration and execution.
The IPCC and politicos will simply ignore him.
bkmk
This should call into question every claim made by the climate alarmists. If they can not predict then they can not claim the models are scientifically valid let alone settled science.
I would go one step further and suggest that the ability to predict climate in the long term has yet been proven as even being possible. Rather than agreeing with those who expose errors in the models I suggest that the models themselves are the errors. Like weather prediction, climate prediction involves many variables and unpredictable chaotic behavior. Long term climate is no more predictable than long term weather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.