[LINK] Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

[Danny Yee]

Alan L Tyree wrote:
> I don't know if the IPCC model is the best we have. Richard Lindzen has
> argued that the model does not take appropriate account of cloud
> formation and that it over emphasises the effect of CO2 (as opposed to
> other, more important, greenhouse gases like water vapour). He points
> out that historical climate change has not correlated particularly well
> with CO2 concentrations.

What do you mean by "the model" here -- the IPCC report is based on
many studies, using different models.  All GCMs include cloud formation
and the effects of water vapour (otherwise they're produce complete
nonsense) and anyone claiming "CO2 doesn't matter because water vapour
is more important" is talking complete nonsense.  That's like saying
of a bicycle that the forces on the pedals don't matter because the
force of gravity is greater.

See
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html
for a better explanation of this than I can summarise.

> Which brings me back to my original point: models can be audited and
> tested. The **least** we can expect is for these models to be
> independently tested to see if they accurately predict past climate
> changes. Surely any form of the "precautionary principle" would demand
> that.
 
This _has_ been done for much of the modelling.  The IPCC report is
not the result of a single study, but a meta-analysis of all the most
up to date work in the area.

Danny.
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  http://dannyreviews.com/ - over nine hundred book reviews
  http://danny.oz.au/ - civil liberties, travel tales, blog
  ---------------------------------------------------------