IPCC report to backfire on warmism — ‘No way Congress will consider upending economy on the basis of flawed computer projections’

Byron York writes at Human Events:

Given how deeply the IPCC is invested in the issue — it shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007 — there’s little doubt the report will give environmental activists at least something to work with. For example, it appears IPCC scientists will declare even more forcefully than before that they are absolutely certain human activity is causing warming. They will repeat previous calls for action against warming on a global scale. There will still be dire warnings.

But the political debate will change. There’s no way Congress will consider upending the American economy with far-reaching tax or regulatory schemes on the basis of flawed computer projections about a phenomenon that may or may not require any action at all. The activists can produce as many ads as they want. They can call opponents “deniers” all they like. It just won’t work.

Read more…

12 thoughts on “IPCC report to backfire on warmism — ‘No way Congress will consider upending economy on the basis of flawed computer projections’”

  1. “There’s no way Congress will consider upending the American economy with far-reaching tax or regulatory schemes on the basis of flawed computer projections ”

    I’m afraid this prediction is at odds with historical observation.

  2. someone is giving Congress wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too much credit. there is no limit to the stupidity those fools are capable of.

  3. Isn’t there a government prosecutor in just one state who will file fraud charges against the EPA, NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and Al Gore? Someone needs to get these fraudsters in a court of law.

  4. When I teach people about math in computer apps (Excel and Access), I tell them that people pass legislation based on bad math and they laugh. I’ve had to quit saying specifically that it’s the warmists, mostly.

  5. There is also an inherent error when converting decimal numbers. because of the translation from binary to decimal, when you have a fraction (such as 10.27), you may not get the right result. That is why all accounting programs SHOULD (but do not always do it) use a manual rounding function (such as (Int((num x 100) + .5))/100)

  6. Howdy philjourdan
    I’m personally thinking of the Hockey Schtick. There are known issues with decimal precision numbers in programs like Excel but I wasn’t quite that far in the weeds this time.

  7. In my personal experience with data management and computer programming, the one thing you can always count on a computer doing is exactly what it was programmed to do. That’s why I shake my head every time I hear the phrase “computer models predict”.

Comments are closed.