Computer Modeling

LONDON (March 5) -- Climate scientists have hit back at skeptics with the publication of a new paper that says the case for man-made global warming is now "stronger than ever." The team put together the new set of evidence by comparing computer models of possible causes of climate change."

For those of you who may have missed it, the "evidence" is based on "computer models."
In doing further research, I have looked into the accuracy of "computer models" over a broad spectrum - models used in predicting hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic activity etc. According to the facts, "compter models" have been reasonably accurate only 6% of the time.

In other words, using computer models to provide supporting evidence of anything at all is as scientific as basing future predictions on astrolgy.

Ooops! Research indicates that astrolgy is accurate about 11% of the time. In other words, about twice as accurate as computer modeling.

Still, the "climate experts" still insist on basing their predictions on something only half as accurate as star-gazing.

That is not science. It is hocus-pocus.

Now that "Climate scientists have hit back at skeptics with the publication of a new paper ", I guess all I have to do is "publish a new paper" that says they are full of crapola, and that would be sufficient proof that they are full of it.

Sorry, GW hoaxsters, I'm afraid it will take a wee bit more than "publishing a new paper" and using computer models to convince intelligent people. But keep trying - you may actually come up with something that makes sense.

/