Posted on 10/02/2013 5:46:09 PM PDT by lbryce
It’s worth offering a bit more context on a point I raised in my morning post on the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
Will the fresh assessment of global warming from the panel matter where it counts, in the realm of environmental and energy policy and diplomacy?
In the short run, no. And this is not only because of disinformation campaigns, as some would assert.
Just as the trajectory for climate change at the moment is substantially determined by emissions of greenhouse gases emitted in decades past, prospects for climate legislation or a new international treaty are largely determined by bigger political and diplomatic realities shaped over generations
(Excerpt) Read more at dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Hm. Could it possibly be because Climate Science even more Climate Science hasn't demonstrated a single infinitesimal iota in which to support Changing Climate Policy??!!??
Because it is not science, Obamaholes.
"Andrew C. Revkin is an American, non-fiction, science and environmental writer. He has written on a wide range of subjects including destruction of the Amazon rain forest, the 2004 Asian tsunami, science and politics, climate change, and the North Pole. A reporter for the New York Times from 1995–2009, Revkin currently writes the Dot Earth environmental blog for The Times' Opinion Pages. He is also Senior Fellow for Environmental Understanding at the Pace Academy for Applied Environmental Studies at Pace University,[1] as well as a songwriter and musician."
Global Warming exists to make liberals rich.
Man cannot control Mother Nature.
“He is also Senior Fellow for Environmental Understanding at the Pace Academy for Applied Environmental Studies at Pace University”
Well, there’s a mouthful. Out here in the real world, that just means that he knows two things: Jack and sh*t. And Jack just left town.
In the short run, no. And this is not only because of disinformation campaigns, as some would assert.
The panel can freshen up its assessment all it wants. The assessment by the panel is unscientific and thus fatally flawed.
The panel committed a no no. They started with the premise that global warming is caused by mankind, and then selected data that supports their faux hypothesis. They also modified temperature records to better suit their desired findings. Scientists frown on such an approach.
The well-documented disinformation has come from the panel members.
Climate change is caused by the Sun, not you.
Sounds like he’s a songwriter and musician, and the rest of the gravy train is there to pay his bills with scare stories and hysteria shakedowns.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.
3. The earth is a rock.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
this just in:
Latest Climate Science Estimates Predict Doubling of the Flow of That Famous River in Egypt
Excellent! They're just in deniiiial.
Astounding the people are still flogging this dead, old horse of man-made climate change.
One has to assume it’s because there’s so much cash in it for all the yea-sayers.
Does that mean the rest of us are in Denial?
no it means the climate ‘scientists’ are in denial re the last 15 years of the temperature record. in the new ipcc report denial flows like a river!
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.