Rand Paul to CNN's Jake Tapper: Make Sure Your Viewers Know The Climate Models Have Been Wrong

Real Clear Politics ^ | 6/1/17 | Tim Hains

[markomalley]

Sen. Rand Paul debates CNN host Jake Tapper on the issue of climate change, and the president's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.

Paul argued that scientists have been predicting disaster for decades, while Tapper disagreed, claiming about the predictions: "all of it has happened."

"You need to make sure that your viewers know that most of [climate scientists’] models has been wrong," Paul said. "They adjust it every year because they haven’t been good at predicting things."

[kvanbrunt2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGshOVzVOEg
video at link

[Mark17]

I think it means porn.

Now that, I could believe.

[AlaskaErik]

There was a story a year or two ago about an Australian mathematician that found several errors in the computer models used for globull warming. The media of course has buried it, but it’s still got to be out there somewhere. But basically the models were way off due to these errors.

[Enchante]

No polar ice, and the Atlantic Ocean is sloshing down the avenues in Manhattan. What, nobody notice this?????

[Regulator]

Jake has a bachelors degree in history...and visual studies..gul durn it!

There's a difference between that and Journalism?

I tested out of most of those things when I was 17 in my second year of college. Got 24 credit hours for a 3 hour test.

You could do it by simply reading the World Book from A - Z in a couple of weeks. I did that when I was 13.

So before I was 18, I knew pretty much everything Jake had to know to get a Kollege Degree and a big job at CNN.

And those idiots put him up against an Opthamologist?

[jonrick46]

Let’s do some math

The total mass of Earth’s atmosphere is about 5.5 quadrillion tons. Man has produced how many tons of CO2 over the industrial age? What % of the earth’s atmospheric tonnage does that amount to? The figures are being too conservative:

We have produced only 0.00022% of ALL CO2 in the atmosphere-that’s it—and since natural CO2 is just .004% of the atmosphere, that means we’re only responsible for such a SMALL % of the total atmosphere that it’s not even significant in the slightest. There is simply NO way man can be responsible for global climate change—none!

‘Scientists’ should be ASHAMED of themselves for even suggesting man is responsible!

Our atmosphere is comprised of 6 quadrillion tons of molecules—6 quadrillion folks! ALL natural and man made CO2 amounts to just 8 billion tons. That is NOTHING compared to the sheer volume of atmosphere—it practically doesn’t even register—it is such a small portion of our atmosphere that there is absolutely NO way such a small amount can capture near enough heat to raise our earths temps one iota—period!

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

Of course it’s relevant. Climates change all the time. CO2 spikes all the time. There is no scientific doubt about that and, to try to blame climate change on 0.00022% of the atmosphere is ludicrous regardless of how old you might think the earth is. The fact remains the total amount of CO2 produced by man for the whole of the industrial age is just 0.00022% in relation to the total tonnage of atmosphere.

Please explain to everyone how just 0.00022% of the atmosphere can cause global climate change? Please explain how just 0.00022% of our atmosphere can capture enough escaping heat, then back radiate a FRACTION of that heat back to earth to cause climate temps to rise? (and note, I’m being generous because not all of the 0.00022% over the industrial age is still In the atmosphere.

[jonrick46]

More Math:

Ok, so the big panic is that CO2 levels are rising and causing havoc. Ask the Global Warmers a few questions. First, in Part-Per-Million (ppm) what is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? How fast is it increasing yearly in parts-per-million? What percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made? A true believer of CO2 boogyman syndrome should be able to answer these simple questions, don’t you think?

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are 400ppm. Yearly increase taken on the high side is 2ppm. Human caused CO2 is 3-4 percent of all the CO2.

4% of 2 parts per million equals .08ppm

Think about that for a while. Man is causing global CO2 levels to rise at a yearly rate of .08 parts per million.
That is eight 100th’s of 1 part-per-million per year???

You get the deer in the headlights look when you counter the warmers in a math discussion. It’s rather enjoyable...

[beaware]

Visual studies???

Monkey see... Monkey do.... sometime do doo...

[Covenantor]

...CO2 levels in the atmosphere are 400ppm.

Yearly increase taken on the high side is 2ppm. Human caused CO2 is 3-4 percent of all the CO2.

4% of 2 parts per million equals .08ppm

Think about that for a while.

Man is causing global CO2 levels to rise at a yearly rate of .08 parts per million.

That is eight 100th’s of 1 part-per-million per year???

...and of course, as with the much tossed about family with 2.3 children, the .08 parts per million is only an arithmetic shorthand that is appealing to the inumerate talking heads. I've tried to simplify getting the point across to supposedly well educated folks by using the "Where's Waldo?" frame. Imagine a satellite photo of 100,000,000 people and telling them to find the 24 Waldos. Only a few bother to really think it through. Most respond with, "Well, I'm no scientist?" Yeah but...one used to leave grade school with some proficiency in basic arithmetic and awareness of fractions and percentage.

Not any more.

[jazzlite]

...”So the Journalism major goes up against the Medical doctor debating science.

Sort of not a contest, is it?”...

Great point. Becoming a doctor requires learning and practicing critical and unchanging scientific principles, which takes from 8 to 12 years of a person’s life. Becoming a journalist is to find the easiest path to a college degree which, evidently, teaches the art of manipulation of the masses with either fake news or deciding what to cover or not to cover in the news. Reading a teleprompter is not too hard. My 11 year old could do it. I just read that an answer to the usurpation of the news and entertainment industry in America can mostly be laid at the feet of the properties and interests of the following: Comcast, Disney, Time Warner and CBS. Now, my question is this. Can those powerful entities wipe out any opposing views of politics, life and culture in America? Dangerous business, if you ask me.

[ReaganGeneration2]

Rand Paul destroyed that elitist.

Step 1 in arguments with libs - Go after their character

[ckilmer]

The climate is currently changing. It has always changed. The liberals use the word phrase “climate change” so as to get a leg up on the arguement in the same way the use the word phrase “ climate denier”. Because the climate has always changed --sometimes getting hotter, sometimes getting colder--the AGM arguement is highly suspicious. The causes of climate change in the past are typically to do with the amount of radiation from the sun related to the sun spot cycle. But climate is also affected by volcanos and more infrequently by asteroids.

[Fightin Whitey]

What on earth is visual studies?

The development of an ability to deliver the perfectly rapt gaze upon the object of one's rapture.