Posted on 04/06/2015 7:06:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the 1980s that's what the same voices were saying about the end of the 20th century. We are now 15% of the way into the next century and their doomsday tales were vastly overstated.
Ted Danson admits sheepishly that they HAD to be scaremongering back then to get the public to pay attention. They knew that the oceans would not be dead by 2000.
In 2000, they were claiming that British children would never see another snowfall.
ENOUGH of the bullstalin already.
“4) There must be a scientifically valid and repeatable scientific experimental model that ties in man’s activities with the increased temperature.” (and ACCURATELY predicts present and future increases)
That’s the big one.
And since non-tortured data indicates that our temperature has been flat (and perhaps cooling) - I just say 'go away' you carbon tax lusting trolls.
It’s really about the industrial commerce privilege.
First, it would be good if they could should a direct effect between CO2 and warming, while also showing the effect of water vapor and other gases have on the climate.
Second, they would have to show climate models that better predict the rise in temperature compared to reality, which use more accurate data, and not cherry-picked and processed data. Not to mention that all of the data and models should be open for public scrutiny.
Third, they would have to show why warming is bad. The seas rising and more extreme weather conditions have not panned out as they have predicted. To me, a warmer planet would mean long growing seasons in many parts of the word, and the extra CO2 would lead to more plant life, and therefore food. Yes, places that are a desert now would be more of a desert later, but they are deserts.
Fourth, they would have to show a reasonable solution to solve the problem. There must be ways to combat this problem that doesn’t cripple the economy or involve a massive reduction of the population. And if there is no way to reverse the problem, then it is not an issue.
Otherwise, this looks like a political alarmist agenda to undermine democracies and republics for a centrally planned economy. And we all know how that turned out in the last century...
Even if we suspended reality, played along, and went out on a limb and took the temperature(s) of the planet are increasing because of man’s a-b-c activities, at face value, I fail to see how the left’s policies and so-called, “solutions” reverse a single damn thing. How does transferring of wealth from one country to the next and setting environmental policy so strict that it does nothing more than stifle innovation and consolidate power to the few, help the planet or environment?
No. Temperatures are not going up.
Ask Oklahoma, and its Tornado Alley.
Two years in a row that they've had a whimpy early tornado season.
How come no one addresses the CO2 generated by the fermentation that is needed to make the ethanol put in our fuels to 'combat global warming'?
Exactly. Can they start their models with 1915 conditions and arrive at 2015? If they can, I haven't seen it.
Nothing will change my mind. God made this planet. It is his and He has already told us what will happen to this planet. He is going to destroy it and create it new. That’s it. Its not up to us either way.
How about telling us the % of fluctuation driven by the sun first - then we can talk about the local influences and any part they may play.
Also help if people would follow the scientific method instead of determining where they want the data to take them and then selectively mining to find what supports their idea.
How about a comparison of earths fluctuations to other planets in our solar system - any patterns there?
How about not ignoring the large number of scientists who disagree and actually having a scientific discourse instead of demonizing and politicizing the discussion and emoting?
sigh
"It's a likely consequence of climate change and rising temperatures."
It's the new Communism.
Warmunism...
Over the last 25 years their models were proven false.
Realizing this and going forward, if their newest models cannot accurately “predict” the temperature and disaster trends of the last 100 years (they should be able to plug in a year and get a reasonable projection of an outcome we already have on record) then the models are not dependable.
If you can’t determine the correct answers with an answer key, the rest of it is mere guesswork.
settled Anti Science
Ask him to explain man’s influence on temperature fluctuations on other planets.
IF all these things are true (highly suspicious, since the “scientists” are known to be politicized), then it still proves NOTHING about it being caused by man. Nothing.
What is there in the SOLAR system that could possibly be responsible for temperature fluctuations... other than our own carbon footprint?
SHHHHH! The money changers who move those e-dollars from one nation to another will get to keep a processing fee. And then there are the fees they will collect from lobbyists for countries and corporations. You are going to ruin their trillion dollar gravy train.
What evidence do I need to see to believe in AGW?
How about absence of the criminal agenda to impose global redistribution of wealth. It would also help if the scientific method were imposed on the “science” of this new religion, you know, like allowing intellectuals with dissenting viewpoints into the conversation for a start.
The biggest problems the global warming zealots have to overcome; why do the researchers paid by leftist government entities keep getting caught in fraud, and why do these leftist government entities use this fraud to redistribute wealth?
It’s a “follow the money” sort of thing.
I scanned this article, I might have missed it, but did he note that we are still coming out of the last ice age?
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.