Posted on 06/03/2017 8:30:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
If you took readings from a thermometer in your front yard every ten minutes for 24 hours and averaged the readings, and did the same with a thermometer placed in your back yard. Chances are that the averages you calculated would not agree within a few hundredths of a degree. Yet the alarmist believe that the entire earth's temperature can be calculated a few hundredths of a degree a hundred years from now based on the readings of thousands of poorly sited ground based recording stations.
In some cases one thermometer in a subarctic area is suppose to give us a temperature for thousands of square miles of the arctic. It is all so ridiculous that the fact that people are able to hold these beliefs is more a statement about human gullibility than any connection to climate.
Anthropogenic global warming has about as much to do with science as Scientology does.
Most reported laboratory data is above method detection limit, i.e. 3 sigma above the noise of the system being measured. That means there is about a 2% chance of reporting a false positive result.
ALL of the temperature change that is being argued is well below the noise of the system. The natural variability of temperature over the last 10000 years is about -2 to +4 degrees C (6 degrees of noise), and we are talking about reducing global temperatures 0.2 degrees C.
If I reported data like that, I would get my ass kicked, and deserve it.
Dumping Paris will get Trump re-elected. It was brilliant...
Sorry, we’re not all scientist. Let me rephrase, if the “hypothesis” is correct.
You’re absolutely right....it cannot be modeled etc...
“He was elected on economic issues. No need to discuss the science which is unsettled.”
indeed. trump’s speech made that powerfully clear: the “agreement” had nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with ham-stringing the U.S. economically and transferring wealth and jobs from the U.S. to others.
If the agreement was really about the environment, then the biggest polluters on the planet, namely China and India, would have been subject to the same terms as everyone else and not given a free ride to pollute more than the rest of the world combined.
so absolutely no need to argue the “science”.
1) The treaty was never ratified - therefore, our compliance with it was illegal from day one.
2) This was just a way for the globalists to weaken America.
3) Obama wanted to destroy America; every act the committed and every appointment he made was toward that end.
4) Climate Change was an is a massive wealth redistribution scheme. Today’s “environmentalists” are yesterdays naked communists.
Period. End of story....
If the global warming hoax was real, why would Mother Earth not suffer from Chinese and Indian industry?? Or is it only American industry that hurts? Why don’t the global elitists explain that one?
President Trump should have declared it a Treaty and submitted it to the Senate for ratification. The Senate would reject it. The President then could have issued a statement releasing the U.S. from any obligations previously agreed to because now ratification was rejected.
There are always going to be consequences for anybody who rocks the boat or goes against the status quo of the prevailing society in any historical era. Some consequences are expected while others are unexpected. It’s simply life in a human world.
Perhaps what we’re seeing is the wounded head of the globalist beast. Naturally, he’s going to howel, stomp his feet, snort, and attempt to take revenge.
But ultimately, Trump has said no to further divestment of US wealth and opportunity. We should expect our enemies foreign and domestic to throw a temper tantrum fit.
Unnecessary waste of time.
WHY is Sarah Palin included in the picture with those other loonies (bottom right) in Post #10???
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.