The Science Fiction of IPCC Climate Models
The authors post at the Heartlander the flaws evident in the climate models used by the IPCC. Could it be that there is no such thing as global warming, or that the modles are incorrectly predicting the severity of the change? The authors write that, the human race has prospered by relying on forecasts that the seasons will follow their usual course, while knowing they will sometimes be better or worse. Are things different now?
For the fifth time now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims they are. The difference, the IPCC asserts, is increased human emissions of carbon dioxide: a colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas that is a byproduct of growing prosperity. It is also a product of all animal respiration and is essential for most life on Earth, yet in total it makes up only 0.0004 of the atmosphere.
The IPCC assumes the relatively small human contribution of this gas to the atmosphere will cause global warming, and it insists the warming will be dangerous.
Other scientists contest the IPCC assumptions, on the grounds the climatological effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is trivial and the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that the net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be forecasted.