Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Dogma is being challenged.
|
The paper as I read it first claims that you cannot model the climate, then proceeds to show why the model the "consensus" is using is "wrong", and why *his* model is right. I quote:
"The climate is “a complex, non-linear, chaotic object” that defies long-run prediction of its future states (IPCC, 2001), unless the initial state of its millions of variables is known to a precision that is in practice unattainable, as Lorenz (1963; and see Giorgi, 2005) concluded in the celebrated paper that founded chaos theory – “Prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise, very-long-range weather forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”."
#1: He obviously doesn't understand chaos theory like he thinks he does, as if he did, he would understand the difference between predicting weather and predicting climate.
#2: If he doesn't think the climate can be modelled, why does he then spend the rest of the paper trying to remodel it?
#3: This Monckton fellow isn't a scientist, he has a degree in classical languages (ie Latin - Greek). While that doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong, the fact that his paper was not only not peer-reviewed but is posted with a disclaimer, means that your thread title "50 000 new Global Warming deniers" is a farce - NONE of these 50 000 "deniers" reviewed this paper and agreed with it, so you're not just overstating by 49 999 scientists, you've gone whole-hog and missed by a whole 50 000 out of 50 000!