The Global Warming Hypothesis: Computer Modeling vs. Fact May 8, 2009
Posted by Michael in News, Science, Terrorist Hemorrhoids.trackback
We’re talking about ocean heat here. Not temperature — heat.
Meaning, actual energy, which is what matters if you are interested in global warming.
The global warming scare is primarily based on a computer model, relied upon by many governments, advocacy groups and international agencies, projecting possible outcomes based on many assumptions as well as known relationships, and this model is now several years old. How has it fared in comparison to real-life observations?
Um, looks to me like the lines are going in different directions. WTF?!?
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
You can get a detailed explanation of this graph at Watts Up With That?
[This post has saved or created 64,298 jobs.]
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
Innocent Bystanders 
Wannabe
Here is my nightly Video of Zeke
Here is the Vid of Zeke
.
.
Terrorist Hemorrhoids. heheheh
Wannabe
A cool video of fornicating currencies did not work. Zero links. Gay bar sex got a big yawn.
I’m going with what works. Graphs, baby, oh yeah.
Screw the graphs: I got Pictures.
Betcha never even heard of the weather phenomenon known as Snow Rollers.
Well, we got ’em in Idaho.
Ocean temps! Makes good sense. Measuring air temps can be unreliable. The temperature station in Marysville, CA surrounded by an asphalt driveway and air-conditioning units still records rising temps, while another station in Orland CA that hasn’t had any development of the property around it is showing downward trends in air temps.
IPCC WANTS to keep whining and warning everybody about global warming and refuses to look as substantive evidence that proves otherwise. Golley! Maybe they’d be out of a job. Ya think?
In “Liberty and Tyranny” Mark Levin quotes Vaclav Klaus, economist, president of the Czech Republic, and critic of global warming:
“IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”
Vaclav Klaus is pretty awesome.
This post needs more cowbell
I liked the drawing of the eagle.
I liked the spelling for “Motzart.”
I liked the spelling for “Motzart.”
Me too.
[…] importantly, it really means “my CO2-based AGW hypothesis has been falisified” and I don’t want to admit it.” It has been falsified […]