John Rennie, author
Posted on 12/18/2013 8:52:25 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
It always does.
Actually...no it doesn't.
It contradicts the CHOSEN outcomes of their computer models.
The computer models are loaded with chosen information, often times fabricated information. These models are repeatedly run, usually having VARYING outcomes. Seldom do the models have repeating outcomes. Basically, the outcomes are cherry picked to support a theory.
Truly sad, isn't it? My wife gave me a birthday subscription to "Discover" Magazine. I was astonished at how blatantly they inserted AGW references or innuendo into nearly every article. Then I see the "Discover" editor, along with that freak Bill Nye (the Lysenkoist "science guy") being treated as reliable science sources on Fox News. Our "educational" institutions and media have betrayed us, some deliberately, others through ignorance.
1)
need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem.
Because :
natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus
is not correct. The surplus is absorbed as well.
2)
But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted… What of it?
The better question is - “Climate change - what of it?”
Climate change hysterics continue to ignore the contribution of the sun, oribital cycles, and continental uplift, which far exceed any manmade contribution.
Note, geologically, there is a difference between “ice age” and “glaciation”. Ice age is when you have 24x365 ice at sea level anywhere. Glaciation is an advance of glaciers and they occur many times during an ice age.
Believe it or not, we are currently in an ice age and have had 60 glaciations over the past 4 million year. The last being wooly-mammoth time.
Most of earth’s history there has been NO ice cap. This includes the period w/life on the planet which has so far been sea-ice free 75% of the time.
So we are now colder than it would be otherwise. The rates of change that hysterics claim are greaten than ever before presume that all such changes are linear (there’s no reason to think they would be) and we can only compare so far back, since when ice melts a “record” is lost.
3)
Anyone with even a glancing familiarity with statistics
These would be the people that recognize that the warming period that climate hysterics are upset about is ALSO statistically insignificant in geological terms.
4)
sun or cosmic rays are much more likely to be the real causes
Almost there, don’t forget orbital cycles and continental uplift.
The cycle is called the Milankovich cycle, in case you’re interested, and where we are now in that indicates a warming trend. This started at the end of the last glaciation continues.
Even the sun’s rays will not be able to hold back the next glaciation cycle so expect glacial ice in NY again within 60k years.
5)
Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world
Let it be noted that many climate changes studies are paid for. The beast isn’t fed if there’s nothing to feed.
The thought that “climate change” conspiracy can’t spread is like saying communism can’t spread.
Also, you can tell when there’s “conspiracy” present when you have those who simply disagree are tarred and feathered as the “deniers” are (equating them w/holocaust deniers). Climate change hysteria is more a religion than a science.
6)
angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively
Prima facie false. Governments around the world are paying out the nose for this bunk. Don’t forget to include “green” companies (and also don’t forget that green is the new red).
my 7 got cut off.
7)
Technological fixes, such as inventing energy sources that don’t produce CO2 or geoengineering the climate, would be more affordable
I know of no one who doesn’t buy man made global warming claiming this. Accepting this as a “solution” means that folks can simply change the climate, which is counter to the claim of one who disagrees, so this whole section is an oxymoron.
John Rennie, author
Whatever it takes to justify chopping up the remaining Eagles and Condors in California, I guess.
He seriously doesn't see any such problems in a regulatory system that tries to accomplish the same thing?
Is that Pajama Boy’s older brother (or sister, I can’t tell)?
This is so dishonest it is laughable. The original case in the 1970’s was that the earth was going to be destroyed by GLOBAL COOLING, the next ice age. So called experts said increased carbon dioxide was shown to promote lower temperatures. When the EL NINO weather events occurred in the mid 1990’s the very same “experts” began to sell global warming to the public. They produced time series models that incorporated the recent warmer temperatures. These models are what is referred to as the “hockey stick”. They also manipulated and falsified data. That is what the email leaks(sometimes called climate gate)documented. Through Hollywood and the MSM they produced ridiculous doomsday predictions of cities being flooded and people being starved to death.
The time series forecasts have all proved inaccurate. Global temperatures have gone down slightly since the 1990’s.
The polar ice caps are growing, not shrinking. The politically correct terminology is now “climate change” not global warming. This means literally anything related to climate or weather (from tropical storms to winter storms to above normal temperatures in summer) can be blamed on human activity.
The people who have told the truth about global warming fraud are labeled “deniers”(after holocaust deniers). The people who have been shown to have lied and falsified data are labeled concerned scientists. This entire article is one falsehood after another.
“Climate Change” denier? These pretentious a-holes abandoned “Global Warming” only to declare water is wet.
Regarding Claim 1, the a-holes begin with the premise that nature does not adapt despite the decades of alleged injury.
>> Claim 2: What of [the hockey stick]? The case for anthropogenic global warming originally came from studies of climate mechanics, not from reconstructions of past temperatures seeking a cause.
So the a-holes claim 2 irrelevant but list it as something to rebut the “deniers” objections to it.
>> Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; Earth has been cooling since then.
>> a decade’s worth of mild interruption is too small a deviation to prove a break in the pattern,climatologists say.
Bogus premise followed by a dismissal of it while stating the questionable period is indeterminate.
Good grief...
Easy response -- any global warming believer who has not yet committed suicide is a hypocrite.
The idiocy continues via selective political sources...
>> All in all, counting on future technological developments to solve climate change
So the idiots conclude that climate change is something that can be solved. Who again are the deniers of reality?
My thought as well. Kinda like Barry giving one of his 20 minute answers to a yes or no question.
If they have to write several convoluted paragraphs to try and discredit a simple refute of the facts, then it’s BS.
Is she an accredited scientist?
HOW TO SHUTDOWN OPPOSITION TO THE LIE OF GLOBULL WARMING... LIE YOUR ASS OFF SOME MORE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.