Climate Change Weekly #54
The North Carolina legislature is taking center stage in the global warming debate, voting on legislation this month that would curb the use of speculative, overly alarmist computer models to drive government policy regarding sea level rise.
North Carolina resident and independent scientist John Droz has been instrumental in pointing out scientific flaws in alarmist sea level assertions. After the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) presented a study forecasting 39 inches of local sea level rise by 2100, Droz presented a pair of scientific analyses pointing out major flaws in the extreme sea level projections, which the CRC used as justification for expensive government restrictions.
The North Carolina Senate on June 12 overwhelmingly approved the bill to curb the use of speculative, alarmist computer models. The House likely will vote on the bill within the next week.
Droz has written an article for MasterResource.org explaining the events in North Carolina and providing links to supporting Web sites. Western Carolina University Professor Rob Young, who serves on the panel that advised the CRC on its 39-inch sea level prediction, has written a counter-article for Yale Environment 360 explaining why he thinks sea level rise will be rapid and why the state needs to take strong, rapid action to counter the threat.
SOURCES: MasterResource.org and Yale Environment 360
IN THIS ISSUE
Computer models fail to accurately predict regional climate … NCAR penguin claims illustrate alarmist confusion … Carter documents shortcomings in peer-review process … Environmental activists, not global warming, threaten at-risk species … NASA astronauts, scientists keep fighting for sound science
COMPUTER MODELS FAIL TO ACCURATELY PREDICT REGIONAL CLIMATE
Computer models “utterly fail” to accurately predict regional climate change, IPCC reviewer Ross McKitrick explains in the Financial Post. “[C]limate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse,” McKitrick reports.
SOURCE: Financial Post
NCAR PENGUIN CLAIMS ILLUSTRATE ALARMIST CONFUSION
The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) is creating a media firestorm this week with a study claiming shrinking Antarctic sea ice will reduce emperor penguin populations. The NCAR press release announcing the study makes no mention of the decades-long increase in Antarctic sea ice, which many global warming alarmists curiously attribute to global warming, nor of the positive impact the expanding sea ice has presumably had on emperor penguin populations.
SOURCES: National Center for Atmospheric Research and Cryosphere Today
CARTER DOCUMENTS SHORTCOMINGS IN PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
Peer review is a quality control process that can fulfill an important role in weeding out poor papers, but it does not ensure that a published paper reaches accurate conclusions, paleoclimatology professor Bob Carter writes in the Financial Post. Carter points out that Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity was not peer-reviewed, while many other papers are wrong in their conclusions despite undergoing peer review.
SOURCE: Financial Post
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS, NOT GLOBAL WARMING, THREATEN AT-RISK SPECIES
Environmental activists at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, taking place in Rio de Janeiro, are pushing economic and environmental strategies that will threaten at-risk species, writes environmental author Paul Driessen on the Web site, Watts Up With That? Driessen explains that species fare quite well in a warming world, but environmental activist agendas put species at risk.
SOURCE: Watts Up With That?
NASA ASTRONAUTS, SCIENTISTS KEEP FIGHTING FOR SOUND SCIENCE
Seven Apollo astronauts, joined by several former NASA scientists, are keeping up the pressure for NASA administrators to back off their alarmist global warming advocacy. The group, which has hand-delivered two letters to NASA officials, point out that speculative computer models touted by NASA administrators have routinely failed to reproduce current climate conditions and are unreliable sources for future climate prediction.
SOURCE: Forbes.com
