Read : http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=O625MM8I&word=klimaatschade.
I often get more than a little frustrated when I read how reputed scientists pontificate about global warming. I most certainly will not deny that there are significant regional indications that there may be a serious problem, but anyone with the slightest knowledge of statistics and models cannot understand how those "big lights" can sell the stark pessimistic long term conclusions from their models as evangelical truth. Most of these models result in nothing more than pseudo-scientific devinations.
To begin with, these scientists forget to mention that the so called historical world long term statistics they use are very rough estimates at best. A mere exemple : how many direct and reliable measurements of CO2 were there worldwide one hundred or two hundred years ago ?
I found a nice sarcastic post about that problem :
"Global Warming: It's Too Late
Well, that's it then ... we've screwed things up so bad that the results will be with us for the next 1000 years. It's a fact ... as pure as the sun in the sky and Al Gore's rhetoric ... we are totally screwed:
The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Somebody give these guys a medal for creating another amazing divining model of wonder. Who needs old science when we have computer models that guarantee the truth. The NOAA can't predict "weather" 6 months out ... but 1000 years of earth's climate is a mere lark for these geniuses."
See : http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-warming-its-too-late.html.
As I wrote before : religion is dangerous, and out. But ideological and pseudo-scientific "élucubrations" about climate, global warming, or free markets for that matter, have taken over as pseudo-religious dogms.
Again, I do not say there is no problem. What I say is that no model can include the utter complexity of mother nature's working, and that all the conclusions, drawn from partial models, and based on uncertain statistics, are very uncertain forecasts at best. Garbage in, garbage out.