(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)
In the first part of this series we discussed the question of whether man-made global warming was as factual as many of us are led to believe, and concluded that this was not the case. In this second part, we are going to take a look at the different admissions made in the Connecticut climate change papers, as to the inaccuracies in their reporting and predictions.
Three years later, in 2006, they still did not have an accurate way to measure GHG levels, as they were forced to admit:
"The third barrier [to meeting 2010 GHG Reduction Goals] relates to the very tools and analytical methods used to assess current and future GHG emissions reductions. Some methods now in use are either not appropriate or very accurate when used to measure GHG emission reductions. This is due in part because the tools and methods developed to assess direct GHG emissions reductions either do not adequately account for indirect reductions (especially those for energy efficiency) or the assumptions used to verify the reductions are not as precise." [emphasis added]Gathering accurate data continued to be a problem as exhibited in the 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health", put out by the Governor‘s Steering Committee (GSC) on Climate Change . The GSC created an Adaptation Subcommittee, consisting of four working groups, to evaluate "the projected impact of Climate Change in the state." The working groups stated that they could not make any specific conclusions using the data provided:
"All of the recommendations from the Adaptation Subcommittee workgroups centered on the need for additional research and monitoring programs to determine more precise risk, including the true financial risk of climate change. Many of the workgroups also found it difficult to completely account for all of the features in their assigned universe, prompting the need for further definition"After making several specific predictions and scenarios of what may occur in the agricultural sector, as a result of climate change in the state, the report is forced to concede that "...it is difficult to accurately predict the many changes that will affect agricultural productivity in the next few decades."
Some of the statistics and predictions are presented in such a way that they can't be wrong regardless of the true income. For example, they say that global warming will increase rainfall, but they also say that it will increase the frequency of droughts.
"Precipitation may increase by 5 to 10% by the end of the century. ...Droughts may increase in frequency, duration and intensity."Therefore, whether there is massive rainfall, or a drought, these planners can refer back to their "predictions" and claim they were right, and that the change in weather is a result of global warming.
Finally, in the ultimate hedge on their predictions, the adaptation subcommittee essentially says that their reporting and predictions could be way off, and in the future, change dramatically:
"Change is the most certain element of our future climate. The climate impacts used in this report are based on the best available information at this time, but these projections will certainly change, and possibly very dramatically, as we gain a better understanding of uncertainties in the climate system (e.g., timing of melting ice sheets, tipping points, feedback loops). Therefore adaptation strategies must continuously evolve and flexibility will be critical."So far in this series we have determined that not only is man-made global warming not a fact, but the way governments are measuring its supposed impact is not accurate. In the next part in this series we will take a look at one of the changes that the state of Connecticut would like to focus on in its efforts to fight "carbon", and that is to force people out of their private motor vehicles, and onto public transportation.