Posted on 10/13/2017 12:31:07 PM PDT by detective
If it’s totalitarian and unresearched, it’s not a consensus.
Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang, two academic microbiologists with no special knowledge of climate, recently used their article in the Hill to commit the repellent but now commonplace hate-crime of describing researchers skeptical of the sillier exaggerations of the climate-change establishment as “denialists.”
This disfiguring hate-word, calculated to invite an invidious comparison between climate skeptics and those who say the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, is not fit to be uttered by any serious academic. Here, as always, its misuse by intellectual pygmies indicated more than a little nervousness on the part of the establishment, for the world continues to warm at a rate well below what was originally predicted, and, as it turns out, there is a good explanation for the discrepancy.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
I just had a thought. Has anyone quantified which nations are most supportive of Anthropomorphic Climate Change and their level of systematic socialism?
It seems to me that the more socialist/communist you are, the more you for climate change as a political issue.
The correlation could be very telling.
If it’s settled, it’s not science.
Stop exhaling if you believe CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
P4L
1. NASA figures released today (or very recently) show the ocean water level is falling.
2. Again, released today or in the last few days, thousands of Antarctic penguin hatchlings have died. Cause? The ice was too thick and parents had to travel too far to get food. Out of 18,000 penguin pairs, researchers documented only two hatchlings survived in one group.
Yep, that global warming thing has fallen about as flat as Al Gore’s political career.
That makes me sad, DO. Liberals lied and penguins died!
Maybe I’m looking at this wrong, but it seems to me we live in a time when people have somewhat missed what is important.
Imagine, someone is actually taking meticulous note of this Antarctic penguin community, and can actually quantify the numbers of hatchlings and their survival rates.
While I don’t want to see these penguins go extinct, this just seems way to anal. Can’t they do a count of adults every five years?
Heck, we only count us once every ten.
I swear - it's really starting to feel like we're winning...
Well, penguins are cute so they are fun to count.
LOL - way to go Christopher Monckton of Brenchley... great post.
Global warming worshipers need to be called what they are- members of a demonizing paranoid Goebbels fear cult.
LOL No, I think misplaced priorities is pretty commonplace nowadays.
How about helping some of the penguin chicks survive instead of just watching them die and making notes about it? I mean, they’re already there.
FWIW I suspect the penguins have been through this thousands of times over the eons. Nature is harsh ... but life is resilient.
heh
I guess so.
The money spent to get this information really screams out to me.
I agree with your thoughts. They probably don’t want to get the pairs dependent upon humans.
The key, as you stated, is that this is how it works in nature. One year will be bad and the next will be a record for the better.
Over a ten year period, the community grows.
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 giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
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?
I love wildlife but there is one thing that has always gotten me about the tree-hugger zealot types. Saving all 9 thousand chicks would be impossible but if they had saved a dozen chicks that would be six times as many as did survive.
I’ve always thought that about the sea turtles. They have all these regulations to protect sea turtle hatchlings from human activity. But then they just stand back and “let nature take its course” while Frigate birds grab nine out of ten of them before they get to the water. Then only a small percentage of the ones that get to the water survive to adulthood.
Get the volunteers out on the beaches and screw the Frigate birds out of dinner. Make sure that 8 out of ten turtle hatchlings get to the water just once or twice a decade and the total population should increase dramatically.
Grape-kun died.
In that case, intervention would not create dependency. I agree with your take on it. That is a very reasoned option.
You could dramatically improve the numbers of the species in a few years.
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.