Posted on 06/25/2010 7:28:34 AM PDT by PROCON
The White House says they are.
The evidence that we are running dangerous risks with the climate is overwhelming. In their zeal to convince the public of this fact, environmental advocates sometimes hype sensational studies and predictions that rest on weak or ambiguous logic. Every time they do, their opponents have a field day.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Denier Ping!
Reason enough to doubt the veracity.
The root core of bad science is starting with a premise and shoehorning the data to fit that premise. And true to form, this idiot columnist can't even grasp the irony of what he has done here.
Mr. Michael Levi, I know this:
that the computer modeling for global warming is total BS. That is because a relevant computer model must recapitulate the entire chronology of climate change from at least four hundred millions years BP, otherwise it is a totally bogus construct of introduced factors to make one see what one wants to see.
Carbon Dioxide levels were far greater than 1000 ppm while highly developed vertebrates walked this planet, and something, not humankind, varied it.
Is that clear to you?
Johnny Suntrade
$90 billion in US government grants dedicated to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis creates a lot of papers over 20 years. Ever wonder why you never stop hearing about studies finding GW responsible for everything from kidney stones to cannibalism? Explains MIT's Richard Lindzen: "It's become standard that whatever you're studying, include global warming's effects in your proposal and you'll get your (government) funding."
Not to mention the fact that the climatic system is non-linear and chaotic, so even with a good model and relatively accurate data, predictions can be off wildly even after a couple of weeks to months...
I have been here 77 years and have seen hotter summers than now, colder winters than now, Rainier seasons than now, drier seasons than now. Cycles come and cycles go varying in time , intensity and frequency.
Studies by true scientists have shown evidence that it has been much hotter and much colder in ages past when people and industries were fewer or non existent. The high deserts have been covered in ice as well as water, with no help from man.
“The authors establish their first point by comparing the beliefs of those scholars with the most published climate papers. They find that only 2 percent of the top 50 climate researchers, 3 percent of the top 100, and 2.5 percent of the top 200 are “unconvinced” of the basics of climate science. Thus they conclude that 97 to 98 percent of the most active researchers in the field support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.”
If you apply sound scientific principle, the reports conclussions are statistically impossible. In other words, the authors choose to suspend reality. Not even Congress can have a 98% dis-approval rating. Although it sure seems like they should.
The computer models are just that, models. When reality did not fit their models, they corrupted their dataset by omitting evidence to the contrary. They destroyed their data, hid it rather than making it available for independent review, and refused to disclose their methodology in any but vague terms, meaning their results could not be independently reproduced.
These are the hallmarks of bad science, not the demand for the data and the proof or accountability for their statements.
In all too typical liberal fashion, the perpetrators are accusing the people who decry their misdeeds of doing the exact same thing they have done.
Of course, those who decry the AGW hypothesis have little at stake personally (our 'funding' does not depend on a political agenda), compared to those who will ever eat at the public grant trough as they lead us all into the next Dark Age, given the opportunity.
He points out that the believers have a history of putting out bogus studies. He does a nice job pointing out the glaring flaws in this latest "study."
But he peppers the article with meaningless "manmade global warming is obviously real" disclaimers, with no proof, just to assure his journalist friends that he hasn't gone off the reservation.
Grow a set, Dopey, and look around. The baseless assumptions you accept like religious tenets are very shakey, once you start to ask for actual proof. Deep down he knows it, that's why he needs to repeat the prayers everytime doubt begins to bubble up in his head.
Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country;(which is being done not only with the input side, but with the output of a byproduct, CO2) if you control food, you control the population;(which is being done not only with the input side, but with the output of a byproduct, milk).
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/06/epa_classifies_milk_as_oil_for.html
“Global Warming is Real” is a mantra for libs. It is a chant for their faith. When plain facts that disproves their religion is in front of their faces, they chant all the louder.
An Mars?
|
A full sentence would be nice like “I wants an Mars bar”
Why Did Fannie Mae Apply for a Cap-and-Trade Patent?
Global Warming on Free Republic
Yes...but the science is settled...soooooooooo...we should pour 90 billion dollars more into this so we can settle it some more.
Whose the Denier now.
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.
The smart busybodies who want to tell everyone else what to do need a new reason why We're All Gonna Die. The hoax that they are selling, Global Climate Change, has been disconnected, or is no longer in service.