Durban failed to explain why models were not achieved (Letter published in The Australian, 16 December 2011)
Your editorial (15/12) discussing Canada’s withdrawal from the binding Kyoto agreement also states your continued acceptance of “the strong evidence of anthropogenic climate change and support (for) limits on greenhouse gas emissions as a precautionary and remedial measure”.
But surely questions must be raised by the failure at Durban to hold any serious discussion of the now obvious failures of the supposed consensual climate science.
Most astonishing is the failure to explain at Durban why predictions based on scientific (sic) models are not being achieved.
Why do we need even to take precautionary action when there has been no real warming for almost two decades, no recent sea-level rise, no Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in 30 years and no Pacific atolls disappearing beneath the waves?
And, going back further, how do the modellers explain why over the past century temperatures did not rise for about 40 per cent of the time even when CO2 concentrations were increasing?
As the barman said to excessive imbibers, time’s up mate. Your precautionary action is to recognise you can’t get away with believing models.
Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic