In the evaluation of every quantitative scientific investigation, it is mandatory that the scientist give a quantitative evaluation of the errors inherent in his work. Along with many other principles of ordinary honesty, however, the analysis of errors has been a casualty of press conference publication, politically correct interpretation, and the tax-money driven pseudoethics that are the hallmarks of enviroscience in general and the global warming industry in particular. Figure 1 is a diagram from "Uncertainties in Climate Modeling: Solar Variability and Other Factors,'' a paper presented to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate by Sallie Baliunas (available from the George Marshall Institute, 1730 K Street N.W., Suite 905, Washington, DC 20006-3868). Since errors in the climate change models are much larger than the the predicted greenhouse effect, the modeling scientists should have disqualified their own models as irrelevant to the global warming hypothesis. That this must be done by another scientist before the United States Senate reveals improper actions by the modeling scientists. 
|
|
Vol. 24, No. 3
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 24, No. 3 Date: October 01, 1996 01:04 PM Title: Human Bandwidth
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|