Posted on 11/04/2018 11:04:30 AM PST by fireman15
About 10 years ago the brand name global warming was changed to climate change. The reason was simple. The Earth was failing to warm. An additional benefit of the climate change slogan was that everything that goes wrong with the weather can be blamed on climate change, caused by burning fossil fuels. The 2012 hurricane Sandy, that flooded parts of New York and New Jersey, is routinely blamed on climate change. The great New England hurricane of 1938 struck the same area and was vastly worse, killing more than 600 persons. That could not be blamed on climate change caused by CO2, because CO2 was not an issue in 1938. Blaming Sandy on CO2-caused climate change is simply a made-up story without scientific foundation. Just because there are plenty of scientists making a connection between climate change and Sandy does not mean that a scientific foundation exists. It does mean that plenty of scientists are eager to benefit from natural disasters. The idea that scientists are neutral observers resistant to political influence and money is naïve. Scientists are bought and sold every day in the courtrooms of America as paid witnesses. Scientific organizations lobby relentlessly and effectively in Washington. The National Academy of Science pretends to be the government’s advisor on scientific matters. Somehow their recommendations always suggest that more money should be spent on science. Global warming, a.k.a. climate change, has been a bonanza for a large segment of the scientific community. Just as with other special interest groups, the policy recommendations of the science community are heavily influenced by the prospects of getting money from the government. We need science, but science cannot be allowed to run wild.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The orchestrated crisis to give the government an excuse to take over control of energy use and the means of production. It has always been a goal for communists.
As another here has asked several times, “What is the correct temperature for the climate?” I ask who is the God-like authority to determine such numbers and what are their qualifications, certifications, proven history of correct deductions and what was used to come up with those numbers?
The models have waaayy too many unknown variables to be useful or valid, and these variables are given values based on assumptions. After a few assumptions are added, the model becomes the assumptions.
If any part of global warming/climate change were valid, the low-lying Maldives would have been submerged years ago.
.
“”Scientist” is a term thrown around a little too loosely these days.”
I think a good chunk of them have degrees in political “science”.
Everyone should be keeping up with the renewable energy standards in his state and what renewable projects are being planned or underway.
“That could not be blamed on climate change caused by CO2, because CO2 was not an issue in 1938.”
It still isn’t an issue in reality.
I found some historic pictures of Hawaii with the same mountain in it from roughly to same angle, about 70 years difference.... no difference in the water level... hmmm
In the seventies it was global cooling
We are in the midst of a Maunder Minimum. Expect a mini ice age
Another one is “Journalist.”
H2O is 300-400 times more potent as a greenhouse gas (roughly the same quality and 300-400 times more prevalent). Its use in the heat cycle of the earth is clear, and unambigous. It is difficult to model however, and in order to accurately model climate change, bigger factors have to be modelled accurately first. If CO2 effect is less than the noise of H2O, then how do you know it is CO2?
DK
The warmist argument is that C02 will warm things slightly, causing greater H20 evaporation from the oceans which will cause much greater warming. My argument back has been that any ocean evaporation should then cause more warming than C02 which should then cause even more evaporation in a runaway warming event. But, that has not happened and the oceans have been there for over 100 years.
From providing 1% to 2% of their states needs?????
My argument is that higher CO2 levels means more stuff is going to grow and “sequester” the carbon, leaving more O2 free to do other things...
I have often heard sources claim climate change on the strength of Sandy. The reason storms in this part of ocean can become so strong, and that includes Nor' Easteners is their proximity to the warm Gulf Current. But I guess that doesn't match with the narrative.
The main argument that Al Gore made in his movie was that when CO2 went up, the Temps went up. That was a bald face GD lie and he knew it..according to ice cores taken.
ALL the experts (scientists) agree this; When the Temps went up, CO2 followed, not the other way around like Al “the carnival barker” Gore claimed. And there was a substantial time lapse.
a BIG ten four.
Changing from Global Warming to Climate Change was brilliant bit of marketing.
It’s undeniable.
The climate has always been changing.
Their problem is the climate has always been changing, even before man had any industrial capacity.
I have no idea where you live. But as an example, Iowa gets about 36% of their power from renewables.
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.