1 for 3: good in baseball - awful in global warming

The hallmark of great science is the ability to question everything no matter how entrenched and popular the theory. Right now the status quo on global warming has reached a political fevered pitch. Unfortunately it is becoming a black mark for a scientist to question the validity of certain asserts of global warming. However, we feel differently. We need to hear from dissenting voices when it comes to the critical debate on global warming.

Below are key points from an opinion piece by James Lewis, which appeared on AmericanThinker.com, January 16, 2007. The critical piece is worth bearing in mind in today’s heliocentric heresy-era we have not found ourselves in when it comes to debate on global warming.

Lewis’ Key Points on global warming

Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis to hold; at least until climate science becomes mature.

Climate science is very immature right now: Physicists just don't know how to deal with hypercomplex systems like the earth weather.

The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. He gives as an example: we can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat.

Lewis asserts that, “whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands.”

Models of the Earth’s climatology are incomplete.

The model by numbers

Lewis asserts the real world is full of Xs, Ys and Zs, far more than we can write little models about. He raises the question: How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?

Constant testing is needed. This is why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly, Lewis claims.

Imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred Xs, Ys, and Zs --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun… minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

1 out of 3 isn’t bad in Baseball

Lewis’ bottom line: best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. He raises the question then of how many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on this chance?

Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis, not a fact.

Get the full Scoop

Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock
By James Lewis

Our Take

Rigorous science demands rigorous questioning. Without it, we would be still going around the Sun, the Earth would still be flat and the Liberal Left would be one-hundred percent right about global warming.

BACK TO: Global Warning CoverUps * PlayingPolitics.com * Media CoverUps

Flirting.com * GraphicDesigners.com * IrelandOnline.com * LimoRentals.com