Thursday, February 14, 2008
My point is that sophisticated and well-equipped meteorologists were not able to accurately predict the weather 24 hours in advance. It seems to me that day-to-day weather prediction is, or at least should be, a much better developed science than global climate prediction. The variables are better understood, the data are more comprehensive, more available and more accurate, and the system is much less complex in the former instance than in the latter.
For the life of me, I have great difficulty understanding why we should place much stock in the predictions of global warming alarmists who want us to spend billions, if not trillions of dollars "fixing" the supposedly anthropogenic damage to our climate, based on computer models that purport to be able to predict climate one or two centuries in the future, when we can't even get tomorrow's forecast right.