NY Times story reveals major hole in Global Warming

I am sure they did not mean it, but there is an article in the NY Times that reveals such a large hole in the concept of global warming that you could drive a truck through it. The basic point to the article is that new research seems to reveal that the North Pole at one time was a tropical paradise with weather averaging 74 degrees year round. Here are the money paragraphs:

The findings, published today in three papers in the journal Nature, fill in a blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of heat-trapping gases to warm the Arctic.

Previous computer simulations, done without the benefit of seabed sampling, did not suggest an ancient Arctic that was nearly so warm, the authors said. So the simulations must have missed elements that lead to greater warming.

What a wealth of statements are packed into those two little paragraphs. First, we see that there is "much to learn about climate change". From listening to Al Gore, all the major mysteries of the global climate are an open book to modern scientists. So much so that:

- Global warming caused by man is dogmatically treated as a fact
- Demands are made to put our economy at risk ratifying KYOTO
- Politicians who do not go along with the global warming dogma are demonized
- Jobs at the Hurricane Center are threatened because they don't take a singularly bad hurricane season and attribute it to global warming
- Al Gore is practically wearing a sandwich sign saying "The End is Near"

Now what exactly is behind the theory of man-made global warming? Temperatures have risen slightly over the last few decades and computer simulation models "show" that it is due to elevated greenhouse gases and that things are going to get drastically worse. Computer simulation models. Now what exactly is a computer simulation model? It is supposed to be a complex program factoring in known elements and large amounts of data in order to predict a conclusion. If instead of the model only containing known elements, presumed elements are added your results are only as good as your presumption. In fact the second paragraph of the article clearly states that since presumed elements instead of known elements (from seabed sampling) were entered, the model gave a wrong conclusion.

So the bottom line is that 1) scientists have a lot to learn about climate change 2) their global warming simulation models are only valid if all known elements (without any critical elements missing) are used. Otherwise, it is simply Junk Science. There is the hole big enough to drive the truck through.