MIT meteorology professor, Richard Lindzen has one of the most concise and insightful articles on the science, and to a lesser degree, the politics of global warming that I have seen. The article is titled “The Science Isn’t Settled” and, after reading this article it is difficult to see how anyone but an eco-religious fanatic could claim that it is. For me one of the most revealing passages is in the section where he is discussing the climate models. He explains how the results are manipulated to force fit the model predictions to actual changes in the climate.
So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently
small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of
CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC
lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much
greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model
choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the
sensitivity of that model.
And this is not something that had to be exposed from climategate emails. It is apparently a well-known and regularly used technique for force fitting poorly predicting climate models to match the climate change reality.
