I was emailed this by a colleague: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225719,00.html
Seriously, FOX? Simpson maybe? but, FOX as news... hard is always a hard sell
From FOX news: Respond to the Writer
¶ 10/27/2006 11:18:00 AMWith respect to the Earth's potential feedback mechanisms, climate modelers try to justify their predictions of global temperature change caused by increases in carbon dioxide by pointing out that positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds amplify the small direct effect of increased carbon dioxide. Although even the IPCC acknowledges that these positive feedbacks are highly uncertain, the modelers proceed to explain away their exaggerated predictions of warming by claiming, in turn, that about two-thirds of the warming are cancelled-out by aerosols, such as manmade pollution. Aerosol experts, however, are not even sure aerosols are capable of doing this.
Positive feedbacks? Negative feedbacks? Which is it? Both? Neither? A combination? While no one really knows for sure, consider this: it appears that the Earth may exert a net negative feedback on greenhouse gas-induced temperature change that adjusts our theoretical calculations downward to match actual observations. In contrast, the modelers suggest positive feedbacks to adjust actual observations upward into alarmist theoretical calculations.
What, then, is the value of piling guess upon guess "as the climate modelers do" to arrive at an answer that is rendered invalid by the historical temperature record?
Considering these points -- along with news of recent research into cosmic rays impacting global climate, the limited physical capability of carbon dioxide to impact global temperature and other various greenhouse myths propagated by climate alarmists "it's no wonder that Sir Nicholas, Al Gore and their brethren keep chanting that the "overwhelming weight of scientific opinion" supports the need for, what in reality would be, economy-killing greenhouse gas regulation.
"Their mantra is best described as another wishful positive feedback mechanism to justify their faith in unreliable models."
The bottom line here is that the Stern report is unwittingly correct in one aspect. Stern says that the science shapes the economics.
