Alarmists push back — on Al Gore!

“Al Gore is doing a disservice to science by overplaying the link between climate change and weather” is the title of a commentary written by alarmist Myles Allen in the alarmist The Guardian.

Al Gore claimed during his televised “24 Hours of Reality” effort:

Scientists used to caution that we were increasing the probability of such extreme events by “loading the dice” — pumping more carbon into the atmosphere. Now the scientists go much further, warning that we are “painting more dots on the dice.” We are not only more likely to roll 12s; we are now rolling 13s and 14s. In other words, the biggest storms are not only becoming more frequent, they are getting bigger, stronger and more destructive.

But Allen says:

The claim that we are “painting more dots on the dice”, causing weather events that simply could not have occurred in the absence of human influence on climate, is just plain wrong. Given the paucity of reliable records and bias in climate models, it is quite impossible to say whether an observed event could have happened in a hypothetical pristine climate.

Click for Allen’s commentary.

3 thoughts on “Alarmists push back — on Al Gore!”

  1. We have a growing reliance on mathematical modeling and gargantuan computer assets to “predict” all kinds of things, like the interaction of living organisms to electromagnetic energy, climate, asteroid impacts on earth, and so forth. With natural systems so large and/or so complex, it is not possible to know and quantify all the boundary conditions, limits, forcing functions, and equations that play into this behavior, or that behavior, or climate behavior, or what ever cosmic behavior that suits your fancy. As a consequence, any results advanced without a complete knowledge of a system as input, is closer to the null set than so-called believers are willing to admit. In my view, this is all a ruse to “legitimize” what they want to hear to their own advantage. Unfortunately, skill sets to distinguish such null sets is no longer generally taught in any public curriculum. As a consequence, the advocates get away with misleading the public by the color of their degrees and/or the size of their mouth.

  2. The computer models can not track historical weather so how can it predict the future. Garbage in Garbage out. GIGO!!!

Comments are closed.