Forget Willie Soon's bad ink in The New York Times, and Climate Research editors resigning en masse to protest his end run around peer review. God is on his side, says Calvinist luminary E. Calvin Beisner, ThD. ,who last year canonized Roy Spencer as 'Outstanding Evangelical Climate Scientist of the Year.' and elevated Delaware's politically appointed State Climatologist to Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Now it's Willie's turn. If anything beats apotheosis in Vegas, it's having the last journal you published in propelled into the Science Citations stratosphere by an Act of God.
According to the Reverend Doctor Beisner Willie's recent paper with Viscount Monckton et al appeared in
'Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), "the Orient's equivalent of Science or Nature," as co-author William Briggs, a statistician, describes it.'Here, from The Christian Post, is Dominionist divine Beisner's take on why Willie must be right, and everybody else's climate models are engines of preterition hateful to God and unfit to be seen in Christendom:
"On the heels of the Vatican's announcement that the Pope intends to urge support for an international agreement to fight global warming by reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil-fuel energy use, a new peer-reviewed scientific paper reveals powerful evidence that CO2 emissions contribute far less to global warming than widely thought.
The paper, "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model," appeared in the January 8 edition of Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), "the Orient's equivalent of Science or Nature," as co-author William Briggs, a statistician, describes it.
Briggs's co-authors are Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, British journalist and mathematician Christopher Monckton of the Science and Public Policy Institute, and University of Delaware Professor of Climatology Dr. David R. Legates, a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
The authors set out to explain why the computer models on which the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others who believe rising atmospheric (CO2) concentrations will cause dangerously high global warming simulate increases far in excess of what is observed, as shown in this graph:
Medium term global temperature trend projections from January 1990 to October 2014.They conclude that it's because the models all assume that feedbacks—the many ways the climate system responds to changes within it—on balance magnify any warming that takes place, whereas observations indicate that they reduce it instead.
This would make the climate system, like other natural systems, robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, i.e., would allow it to vary but within bounds. The opposite assumption would make it prone to catastrophe driven by "runaway positive feedback loops."...
The Biblical worldview … suggests that the wise Designer of Earth's climate system, like any skillful engineer, would have equipped it with balancing positive and negative feedback mechanisms that would make the whole robust, self-regulating, and self-correcting.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, however, all depend for their projections of dangerous warming on computer climate models that have a strong bias toward positive feedbacks...
Climate scientists around the world are reducing their estimates of climate sensitivity. The implication is that whatever harms are alleged to result from manmade global warming must also be reduced. And that makes it more difficult to justify the hundreds of billions, or trillions, of dollars global warming alarmists want us to spend to reduce CO2 emissions...
