What is portayed as an accurate prediction up until recently, is really not true. The reality is that these models have never made an accurate prediction.
Paul Ehrlich failed.
Al Gore failed.
Next up for the globalist control movement is; water.
Thanks,....
Yadda, yadda, yadda.Meanwhile, China alone is building dozens of new coal-fired electric power plants. There is really no evidence (which is admittedly different from evidence of absence) that CO2 has or will cause global climate change. If it doesn’t, well and good - and if it does, well - it did. But there wasn’t anything practical for us to have done about it in any event; that train left the station decades ago.
But even if the climate changes, we, or our grandchildren, might have a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy to debate.
But if there’s one thing we do know, it’s that whether or not their warnings correspond to any reality at all or not, the people who are telling us that the sky is falling are acting in their own best interests by doing so. We also know that they presume that they can simply change the subject any time it becomes obvious that a prediction of theirs is groundless. And that fraud has been committed by “scientists” who wanted to sell the thesis that the sky is falling.
>>>Despite all the work on sensitivity, no one really knows how the climate would react if temperatures rose by as much as 4°C. Hardly reassuring.<<<
No one knows how the climate would react if temperatures stayed the same for the next century, either. It’s a dynamic system. Simply keeping the temperature the same, while the Earth’s orbit shifts and changes, and solar radiation rises and falls, would still mean that changes would happen that we can’t predict.
Despite the fearmongering, I can’t figure out how a warmer and wetter planet would be bad for people, either. (All the screaming about “drought” misses the point that severe global droughts last occurred at the height of the Ice Ages, when much of the water was taken up as ice in contintential glaciers. Warmer air holds more moisture.)
My own theory about all this - and much of the social sciences - is that we tend to see patterns in everything. It’s our nature. Even in places where no patterns exist. We’ve become so good at measuring every little nuance, every speck of group behavior and dynamics, every little molecule of air, that we’re imposing our own biases and beliefs on the patterns that data creates. Global warming is a great example of trying to extrapolate future trends from current data, but there are many more examples, from disparities in women’s and men’s pay to differences in statistics based on race to links between substance exposure and cancer. We love to find the pattern in everything. It’s a strength sometimes and a weakness, too.
God help us.
Then they jumped on the AGW bandwagon, which they never should have done. Looks like they are starting, ever so slowly, to get off.
This nonsense has been going on for almost 30 years. People need to start asking hard questions. Why has there been no significant warming for so many years? Where are the great seaports that were supposed to be flooded? Where are the small island nations that were supposed to dissappear? Where are the vast swaths of lost cropland in the Northern Hemisphere? Why have the predictions not come true? Why no reaction to the exposure of the Hockey Stick as a fraud? Why no reaction to the Climagate evidence of rigged "science"?
If mainstream publications like The Economist start asking these questions the tried and true response of calling the questioner names and screaming "settled" isn't going to satisfy them.
Put it all together, and as a professional meteorologist and a scientist, I will tell you what it means:
They do not know squat. They cannot predict the future out 1 month, 1 year, 10 years. Yet they want us to put all of the economic decisions of the world in their hands, because they have told us that the sky will fall if we do not.
A pure con game. Many wanted to believe their own con, and did. This is common. It is not excusable.
Our excessive emissions of CO2 should be drastically increasing global temperatures except that secret government agencies are seeding the clouds with reflective metals so sunlight bounces back into the upper atmosphere.
That's why all our kids are autistic, have asthma, and food allergies.
If only the lizard people from the 7th dimension would violate their prime directive and finally come down here and put a stop to all of this Illuminati-driven tinkering with our environment then we could get back on the road to sanity!
Oxymoron of the month.
As far as I can tell, this is the only experimentally demonstrable aspect of "global warming." CO2 does have a rather wide absorption/emission band within the infrared portion of the spectrum (the exact wavelengths escape me for the moment). It is unusual, in that most fluorescence bands occupy far narrower portions of the spectrum. Its behavior as a fluorophore, however, is identical to the behavior of every other fluorophore: it absorbs a photon of light and emits it at a slightly lower energy (which equates to a slight increase in the wavelength). The remaining energy (that is not re-emitted) contributes to the kinetic energy of the molecule.
I have never seen any explanation of why or how the fluorescence of CO2 within that particular band has a more significant effect on atmospheric energy than the fluorescence of all the other gasses in the atmosphere, or even than the fluorescence of CO2 at other wavelengths. Nor have I seen any evidence to suggest that the peculiar behavior of CO2 stands out from the general fluorescent noise all around us.
The idea that CO2 could have a disproportionate effect on atmospheric temperatures is not one that is rigorously tested in a scientific manner. Its scientific basis lies in the fact that many people throw in the line "because of climate change" in papers about completely unrelated subjects.
Unfortunately, IMO, the idea that humans could effect climate change is one that fits into certain politicians' schemes very nicely. Trying to convince us to give up our freedom so they can have more power hasn't worked very well. But if they can convince us that all life on earth will go extinct unless we give up our freedom, they get what they want. So the (leftist power-hungry) politicians pick up on climate change, and they do choose the research they want funded. It's a rather unholy arrangement between politicians and scientists that should not exist. I'm not saying politicians shouldn't fund science--but that they should not set up a situation where you produce results they want (or say your results are what they want--they don't know the difference) or you don't get funded.
Oops, I did go on here. But "global warming" is one of my pet peeves--and you did ping me! < /soap box >
your tax dollars at work , fund decades of fake global warming research to fund a hoax that they will use to take away more of our freedom.
and the media instead of exposing the hoax, spreads the lies , brainwashing the public into voluntarily accepting slavery and economic destruction. Oh when I tell someone that global warming is a hoax they look at me like I'm crazy . they really do believe the news media and the gov. sheep being led to the slaughter .
that governments and the media spent trilions of dollars funding decades of fake research shows that government should be practically abolished except for the military and border control
So they want caution used when the data goes against their politics, but want legislation and the iron fist of government RUSHED through when the data SUPPOSEDLY fits their view. I see.
(ranted constantly,
raved about,
shreaked from the Media,
taught in our schools,
blamed on humans,
blamed on Americans,
blamed on Evil Capitalists,
blamed on Rich Republicans,
blamed on Tea Partiers,
blamed on Christians,
blamed on ANY one but loving, caring, Liberals and Socialists.)
No snail darters or spotted owls were harmed in the production of this screed.
Send your donations to FreeRepublic: TODAY!
In short, rules made for the rest of us, must be observed by all of us, including the energy pig politicians and their allies.
That very first graphic with the city and scientists inside the greenhouse, has a ribbon overhead with a few dots in it.
The dots properly illustrate the ratio of CO2 molecules to the total makeup of the entire atmosphere, if not overstating it.
That insignificant .039% of CO2 is usually expressed as 400-parts-per-million, to make it sound big and dangerous to the Low Information Voters (because it has the word million in it)
In other words, those pitifully few dots of CO2 cannot form a heat trapping layer....
They don’t stop shiite!
What is portayed as an accurate prediction up until recently, is really not true. The reality is that these models have never made an accurate prediction.
Every democratic voter needs to sacrifice and put a plastic bag over their head and leave it there, just this once. What a joke they are, but they should get down on their knees and thank Marx that they have the GOP for opposition.
Holding back=Holy Spirit.
I do believe GOD is the part of alleqations, big and small. So it's up to Him, not the "earth people," to decide when the world will burn up.
I lean heavily to Intelligent design and the anthropic principle and a symbiotic relationship with man and nature. I'm sure this is intolerant flat earth mythical thinking and has some context in the DSM-IV R which shows I'm just a nutcase than needs a lot of drugs.
Will some one please show me( I really would like to know.see this) how much "man made climate" is forcing change as compared to environmental things like earthquakes, volcanoes,floods and droughts and things?
-----------------------------------------
I wonder how can we logically believe the EPA can force taxation and thousands of rules and regulations for 330 million( counting the illegals) and this will somehow alleviate all the alleged damage we've done to "gaia," or "mother earth" and the tree-hugger dissociation-ists, worshipers of the world.