Post by marchesarosa on Oct 6, 2010 15:31:42 GMT 1
Let’s be fair and honour someone else other than the great “contrarians”!
Here’s a statement from that mighty intellect, Bob Ward, PR man for the alarmist Granthan Institute’s LSE branch, recently interviewed in Australia.
I would really like helen and Eamonn and abacus to provide us with a translation of his statement just to demonstrate they are capable of critical thinking.
Perhaps the board’s warmist could explain what precisely the nature of the “uncertainties”, the “probablities”, the “large impacts” and the “knowledge” he speaks of, are, since they are all based on the projections of IPCC models and nothing real at all?
Remember that word, Eamonn, “projections”? IPCC “models” generate “scenarios” by plugging different combinations of a few variables into a set of equations and watching the “outcomes”. These models are not based on the historical or current understanding of the interplay of the myriad physical variables that constitute the planet’s climate and determine its future states because we do not have such an understanding. They are, faute de mieux, based upon a few very limited “assumptions”.
So where does the “knowledge” of the future that Bob Ward claims to possess, come from, please?
Here’s a statement from that mighty intellect, Bob Ward, PR man for the alarmist Granthan Institute’s LSE branch, recently interviewed in Australia.
I would really like helen and Eamonn and abacus to provide us with a translation of his statement just to demonstrate they are capable of critical thinking.
“The uncertainties in the science are really about how much it will warm in the future and how it will affect the climate....
We know, despite the uncertainties, there is a significant probability that if we just carry on pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere we risk large changes in temperature with large impacts on the climate, impacts that will be very, very difficult for us to cope with and the kinda [sic] thing that I think most people would not want to risk if there’s a cost effective solution to reducing emissions.”
We know, despite the uncertainties, there is a significant probability that if we just carry on pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere we risk large changes in temperature with large impacts on the climate, impacts that will be very, very difficult for us to cope with and the kinda [sic] thing that I think most people would not want to risk if there’s a cost effective solution to reducing emissions.”
Perhaps the board’s warmist could explain what precisely the nature of the “uncertainties”, the “probablities”, the “large impacts” and the “knowledge” he speaks of, are, since they are all based on the projections of IPCC models and nothing real at all?
Remember that word, Eamonn, “projections”? IPCC “models” generate “scenarios” by plugging different combinations of a few variables into a set of equations and watching the “outcomes”. These models are not based on the historical or current understanding of the interplay of the myriad physical variables that constitute the planet’s climate and determine its future states because we do not have such an understanding. They are, faute de mieux, based upon a few very limited “assumptions”.
So where does the “knowledge” of the future that Bob Ward claims to possess, come from, please?