Al Gore has publicly admitted that ethanol is a hoax. Nice admission, after untold Billions have been spent on higher food prices,conversions of corn to gas, etc. I wonder how much money Mr personality pocketed on his investments around this hoax? I'm still waiting for someone to sue this hoaxter.
The science behind the ethanol hoax was probably just as shady as the science behind the global warming hoax. In the case of global warming computer models are a large part of the claim that the seas will rise, the ice caps will melt, the polar bears will die and the world as we know it will disappear under the waves. These computer models must be very complicated as weather is made up of many many components that are constantly changing. It is unlike trying to prove whether corn can be used as an additive to gasoline. That was pure science. Yes, corn can be used as an additive. What the corn computer models did not foresee was the impact of increased food prices on 3rd world countries. They forgot to put that in the model. They also failed to take into account the fact that it takes more land to grow enough corn to put into gas. But that was not a computer problem was it?
But weather is a different animal. It changes. It sometimes changes very rapidly and does things that the weather forecasters did not forecast. How many times have we seen the forecast change just from one day to the next? How about predicting where a hurricane will make landfall? Have you ever looked at the various computer models that predict the landfall? There are several models, all looking at the same weather data, but very few of them predict the same thing. And more times than not the weather man cannot predict where the hurricane will make landfall until the last couple of hours before it actually hits.
You would think that with all of these super fast computers, looking at all of the data from many satellites, land monitors, weather stations, etc that predicting something as simple as the weather from one day to the next would be pretty simple. I'm not certain that the computer models that are used to predict global warming are looking at all of the same types of data as the computers that are predicting our daily weather. I do know that just a few years ago one of the main computer models that was being used to predict global warming was NOT including cloud cover as a variable. A simple overlook? Or just plain sloppy science?
I'm going to give you a real life, real time illustration of how complicated predicting daily weather is. I watch the Weather Channel, as I'm sure many of you do. I'm going to assume that the computers they use are as good as any that any of the local stations use. If anyone has any knowledge of this being different please let me know. We currently have a cold weather front moving through the Southeast and headed out to sea. Tonight on the Weather Channel the forecaster made the point that they are using two computer models to predict weather. Last night one of the models showed that the system would move out ot sea and would have little impact on the north east. The other model showed the storm would stay close to land and would be a major northeaster. Tonight the forecaster commented that the two computer models had now switched their forecasts. The one that had predicted the storm moving out to sea was now saying the storm would stay close to shore and hence be a major northeaster and the other computer had reversed its position to predict the storm would move out to sea. In 24 hours, the two computer models, looking at the same data, changed their forecast 180 degrees. What's a weather man to do?
Now the importance of what this means is this: Suppose we were making policy on whether to spend money, tax money, based on one of these computer models? Suppose that instead of the weather changing rapidly that we were looking at long range weather patterns, like 100 years or longer? Which of these models would we have based our projections on and hence how we would spend our money? Should we have any faith at all in computer models that cannot predict 24 hours ahead, much less 100 years ahead? Should we subject our economy to spending money to prevent something that may or may not occur? If the current science and computer models that say we should control CO2 output are wrong then why would we attempt to control something that occurs in nature? The computer models that are being used to predict global warming do not take into account the fact that volcanoes expel more so called harmful gases than man could ever put into the atmosphere. It is impossible to predict the level of volcano activity and hence it is impossible to predict what if any affect man could have on changing the climate.
If you don't believe me when I say the weather man cannot predict accurately the weather from one day to the next, jus pay attention to your local weather forecast. What we are expected to believe is that computer models can predict ACCURATELY what the weather will be in 100 years. I may begin to believe that when they can tell me whether it will rain tomorrow or not.
(please pass this on to your liberal friends, they need something to think about during the Christmas season.)