Globally Warm Research

Accuracy in Academia ^ | May 18, 2016 | Malcolm A. Kline

[Academiadotorg]

Academics are still trying to point out the dangers of global warming, even while the rest of us are still wearing winter clothes well into the month of May.

"Although the world's nations, including the United States, should intensify their efforts to reduce carbon emissions, we cannot wait patiently for action on carbon emissions while children's health is in danger," Ron Haskins, Janet Currie and Olivier Deschenes write in a policy brief published by Princeton and the Brookings Institution. "Considering the immense barriers, especially economic ones, that stand in the way of action to control emissions, even under the best-case scenario carbon emissions will continue to rise well into the middle of this century."

"It follows that the effects on children won't moderate soon and may well intensify. Our goal in this policy brief is to summarize the evidence that global temperatures are rising, review how rising temperatures affect children's health, and highlight a modest set of policies that could minimize both the spread of diseases and the harm they cause to children’s health." Haskins works at Brookings, Currie is a professor at Princeton and Deschenes is an economist at the University of California at Santa Barbara. They go on to contradict themselves in the very next paragraph. (Italics and bold added by me for emphasis.)

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently published the results of an extensive study of changes in global temperatures since 1880," they note. "One report details the annual departure from long-term average temperatures. Between 1880 and approximately 1950, the global average temperature dropped slightly in most years. But beginning in 1950 or so, despite considerable year-to-year variation, the trend in global temperature has been distinctly upward. During this period, the global average temperature has risen by over 1° Fahrenheit, and some regional increases have been well above that figure."

[Academiadotorg]

While I'm wearing Thrift store tweeds into the end of May, academics are still trying to fight global warming.

[Starboard]

The only warming going on is the heat rising from the data that’s being cooked by people with an agenda.

[Academiadotorg]

while using a hockey stick for a spatula.

[Starboard]

LOL! Good one.

[fireman15]

Just 10,000 years ago the Seattle area where my family lives was covered with glaciers over half a mile thick. There have been several recent “peer reviewed” studies that question the importance of CO2’s role in the cyclic warming and cooling of the earth. And this is despite the fact that nearly all the massive amount of government funds go to studies trying to prove the opposite. Climate scientists understand that publishing such a paper will make them a pariah in their community and threaten their livelihood. But still the truth manages to bubble to the surface.

If it were not for the current strong El Niño we would currently be going beyond 20 years without any “global warming” at all despite rising CO2 levels. Attacking a harmless byproduct of energy production essential to the world’s prosperity is a transparent attempt to transfer wealth. This has been admitted by members of the UN’s leadership.

[Academiadotorg]

ok, you convinced me;>)

[fireman15]

Did you need convincing?

[Paladin2]

Probably don’t walk or bike to work, nor use ‘net meeting software to avoid flying half-way around the world to CAGW pep rallys in exotic locations....

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Any time one of these fraudsters open their yap, the first question they should be asked is, “Do you support internationalism?” Without thinking, they might answer honestly that they do.

This is by far a less threatening way to ask them, “Do you support a one world, socialist or corporatist government?”, which they would undoubtedly lie about. But amounts to the same thing.

If they answer yes to the “internationalism” question, they have no scientific credibility, because they will support any lie that furthers this goal. It is an article of faith with them.

So at that point you can cut them off, because nothing else they say has any *substance* to it at all, any more than if they were Scientologists trying to convince you of the reality of “The evil alien ruler Xenu, who killed millions of aliens (Thetans) from around the universe by kidnapping them, bringing them to earth in golden DC-8 “space-planes”, stacking them around volcanoes & blowing them up by dropping “h-bombs” into the volcanoes.”

Seriously, that is the true believer level of reality we are dealing with, here, with Man Made Global Warming.

Part Piltdown Man, part Trofim Lysenko, part Paul R. Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb”, and all utter hooey, that seeks global dictatorship.

[Academiadotorg]

actually I need convincing that global warming is occurring. Usually I get predictions.

[az_gila]

“....the global average temperature has risen by over 1° Fahrenheit, and some regional increases have been well above that figure.”

---

They also could have said -

“...the global average temperature has risen by over 1° Fahrenheit, and some regional increases have been well below that figure.”

But that doesn't sound so scary does it?

[fireman15]

actually I need convincing that global warming is occurring. Usually I get predictions.

As I am sure you are aware there currently is no way to accurately predict what is coming in the earth's chaotic climate. There appears to be a correlation between cyclical sunspot activity and solar radiation which may be one explanation for the so called “little ice age”. So some people believe that current patterns indicate a coming cooling trend. I certainly would not bet the farm on it.

Unmanipulated data shows nothing that could not be explained by natural variation. Federal agencies under the Obama administration have attempted to manipulate ground based data to erase the recent nearly 20 year pause in warming as observed using satellite data.

Last week we had high temperatures in the 80s, the next day the highs were in the 50s. When we can have a daily variation in temperatures of 30 degrees or more how can one possibly claim to predict temperature trends that will happen 30 years in the future that are accurate within even a few degrees?

The only thing that can really be said about the theory that the amount CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary driver of future temperatures... is that so far the theory has not produced computer model predictions that have been even close to being accurate. One would think that since the theory has been around for decades now that if it were true at least some of the models would have had at least a small amount of predictive value.

We are just very lucky to live during an interglacial period. Surely, a world going through another ice age will not be able to support the current population of people living today. If previous patterns as discerned by ice core samples are any indicator we must be getting close in geologic time to the end of this interglacial period.