Melanie Phillips Quotes

Computer models of the climate....[are] a very dubious business if you don't have good inputs.

The only basis for even talking about global warming is the predictions spewed out by computer models. The only quote/unquote "evidence" of global warming is what models are predicting the climate and the weather will be in the next 50 to 100 years. Now, what those models spit out is only as good as the data that's put in, and it's an absolute joke. In terms of science, it's a total joke. There is no warming, global or otherwise!

The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models. They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.

It makes very little sense to believe the output of the climate models.

Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?

When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories.

Thus evidence that contradicts the global warming theory, climate Chicken Littles enlist as evidence for the correctness of their theory; every permutation in weather patterns — warm or cold — is said to be a consequence of that warming or proof of it.

An increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling.

The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened.

The basic scientific conclusions on climate change are very robust and for good reason. The greenhouse effect is simple science: greenhouse gases trap heat, and humans are emitting ever more greenhouse gases.

You always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called 'scientific theory' that fits every scenario. Climate change, as they've defined it, can never be disproved.

Whether the ice caps melt, or expand - whatever happens - the anthropogenic global warming theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.

I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain.

We have to be aware that the scientific community throws up tons of different hypotheses and at a certain point we'll find out who was right and who was wrong. But we have to go with the best information right now, which I would claim to be the IPCC reports.

The great tragedy of Science --- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact

We think that computer models represent reality especially if we developed the models.

Among all of our uncertainties weather is the most basic. We can’t live without it and we can’t control it.

However useful computer models may be, the one thing they cannot be is evidence. Computer climate models are simply conjectures.

My dad joined Langley in 1964 as a co-op student and retired in 2004 an internationally respected climate scientist.

The reality of climate change is a stupid thing to argue about.

Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change.

We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations.

I don’t know the science behind climate change.

If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

We need a much better understanding of the climate before making policy choices that would impose substantial economic costs on our Nation.