War on Coal Includes Blocking Exports
Government “shutdown” a boon for Americans, the war on energy has a lull
Global Warming on Free Republic
This is simply Idiocracy. The “experts” pump out Brawndo and express dismayed shock when not all of us drink it.
You know, the ones who benefit from the tenfold increase in spending on the subject over the past 15 years. Who figured out they get their grant money requests rubber stamped when they come to a certain finding, and denied when they come in with another one."
In 1963 Edward Lorenz published his paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” that proved that the Navier Stokes differential equations that describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density (weather and most of climate), can not be predicted from any finite set of past states. The equations are nonlinear, chaotic and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
An error of 0.001 degree in one temperature reading would increase. He is the discoverer of the ‘butterfly effect’ the idea that a butterfly in Peking flaps its wings, and because of that, a tornado does, or doesn’t hit Joplin. You can’t predict which, but you know it makes a difference.
The sun is partially described by the NS equations too. It is, of course, much bigger than the earth, and is also not subject to either prediction or control by man.
Actually the experts say there is no climate change.
The author must be relying on politicians and paid hacks.
Average temperatures are already down a degree. Maybe this goof will catch on when they drop another degree.
Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.
Dear Paul: Climate change is not a hoax. The earth's climate changes in cycles all the time. The hoax part is that man has anything to do with it.
During the day, look up Paul, there is the reason for climate change.
5.56mm
Science does not work by political consensus. This is true even if those polled are scientists.
“I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.”
Experts are not really “experts” when their predictions are consistently wrong. The same “experts” state that if we dismantle our society and live like primatives we MIGHT avoid a catastrophe. Does it make sense to create a catastrophe to avoid a remotely possible one?
Even if we decided to dismantle our ecomony to avert global warming the greatest contributor to CO2 (China) will not so the whole thing is useless anyway.
Finally, even IF global warming occurs the predictions of a catastrophe are even less credible than the GW predictions themselves. Throughout history warmer periods have been benificial to civilization, not a hindrance.
The biggest fallacy is the claim that “The science is settled”. Any true scientist would keep and open unbiased mind, not preach that they are the only opinion available.
The sad part about this is that the warm up to this nonsense happened in the 1970’s, with the scientific fraud Paul R. Ehrlich and his “population bomb”, proclaiming that the world was soon to be destroyed by population growth, and that by the 1980s, half the world would be starving.
His solutions were tyrannical, including forced sterilization, worldwide one child policies, authoritarian government control over all resources, etc., ad nauseum.
Even though EACH AND EVERY PREDICTION of his FAILED, it didn’t matter. And he is still beloved by the same type of sick people that believed him then, and now embrace MMGW, or AGW, if you like.
He was undoubtedly the worst science fraud since Lysenko, and just as abusive of real scientists, but unlike Lysenko and his ideas, Ehrlich was never disavowed, and his ideas thrown out with the trash, as they should have been.
And, as an important lesson, that in only took 20-25 years for people to forget Ehrlich’s public panic, for the new public panic of MMGW-AGW to commence in earnest, once it too is shown up as an utter travesty as well, in another 20-25 years or less, the tyrant wannabees will concoct yet another public panic.
Which, not surprisingly, will require *exactly* the same goals as the previous two.
War on Coal Includes Blocking Exports
Government “shutdown” a boon for Americans, the war on energy has a lull
Global Warming on Free Republic
Nope. Not even close. A bunch of political hacks and self-serving grant seekers. And "peer review"? After seeing what goes on behind the scenes (in the Climategate e-mails), how can anyone believe that peer review is in any way meaningful.