Scrutiny is happening

Meteorologists still can’t even accurately predict the basic weather five days in advance right now, but yet we’re going to listen to politically-connected “scientists” who predict we’ll be swimming with the fishes in 50 to 100 years because of man’s activities and believe them? Give me A FREAKIN’ BREAK! This doesn’t even pass the moron test; never mind all the problems with the faulty science and math behind this farce that has become AGW.

Climate panel on the hot seat - The Washington Times:

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

And more media scrutiny from the great Steven Milloy at junkscience.com.

FOXNews.com - Junk Science: The Washington Post-er Child for Climate Bias - Opinion:

Eilperin’s March 10 article (WaPo) entitled "Carbon Output Must Near Zero to Avert Danger, New Studies Say" has the same sort of journalistic objectivity one might expect from totalitarian state-controlled media.

With nary a critical word about the computer models used to project increases in global temperature, Eilperin touted two new model-dependent studies that "suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide."

So why would any rational person assume that they can be used to predict future climate or serve as a basis for developing national energy policy? As reported in this column last December, global climate models uniformly predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred.