-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Global warming.
- Thread starter smokingman
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Matt Ridley: A Lukewarmer’s Ten Tests | Watts Up With That?
Matt Ridley: A Lukewarmer’s Ten Tests
I have written about climate change and energy policy for more than 25 years. I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself. This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it.
For the benefit of supporters of climate change policy who feel frustrated by the reluctance of people like me to accept their assurances, here is what they would need to do to change my mind.
1. I need persuading that the urban heat island effect has been fully purged from the surface temperature record. Satellites are showing less warming than the surface thermometers, and there is evidence that local warming of growing cities, and poor siting of thermometers, is still contaminating the global record. I also need to be convinced that the adjustments made by those who compile the global temperature records are justified. Since 2008 alone, NASA has added about 0.1C of warming to the trend by unexplained “adjustments” to old records. It is not reassuring that one of the main surface temperature records is produced by an extremist prepared to get himself arrested (James Hansen).
2. Despite these two contaminating factors, the temperature trend remains modest: not much more than 0.1 C per decade since 1979. So I would need persuading that water vapour will amplify CO2’s effect threefold in the future but has not done so yet. This is what the models assume despite evidence that clouds formed from water vapour are more likely to moderate than amplify any warming.
3. Nor am I convinced that sulphate aerosols and ocean heat uptake can explain the gap between model predictions and actual observations over the last 34 years. Both are now well understood and provide insufficient excuse for such an underperformance. Negative cloud feedback, leading to total feedbacks being modest, is the more plausible explanation.
4. The one trend that has been worse than expected – Arctic sea ice – is plausibly explained by black carbon (soot), not carbon dioxide. Soot from dirty diesel engines and coal-fired power stations is now reckoned to be a far greater factor in climate change than before; it is a short-lived pollutant, easily dealt with by local rather than global action. So you would need to persuade me that this finding, by explaining some recent climate change, does not further reduce the likely sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Certainly, it “buys time”.
5. Even the Met Office admits that the failure of the models to predict the temperature standstill of the last 16 years is evidence that natural factors can match man-made ones. We now know there is nothing unprecedented about the level and rate of change of temperature today compared with Medieval, Roman, Holocene Optimum and other post-glacial periods, when carbon dioxide levels did not change significantly, but temperatures did. I would need persuading that natural factors cannot continue to match man-made ones.
6. Given that we know that the warming so far has increased global vegetation cover, increased precipitation, lengthened growing seasons, cause minimal ecological change and had no impact on extreme weather events, I need persuading that future warming will be fast enough and large enough to do net harm rather than net good. Unless water-vapour-supercharged, the models suggest a high probability of temperatures changing less than 2C, which almost everybody agrees will do net good.
7. Nor is it clear that ecosystems and people will fail to adapt, for there is clear evidence that adaptation has already vastly reduced damage from the existing climate – there has been a 98% reduction in the probability of death from drought, flood or storm since the 1920s, for example, and malaria retreated rapidly even as the temperature rose during the twentieth century.
8. So I cannot see why this relatively poor generation should bear the cost of damage that will not become apparent until the time of a far richer future generation, any more than people in 1900 should have borne sacrifices to make people today slightly richer. Or why today’s poor should subsidise, through their electricity bills, today’s rich who receive
subsidies for wind farms, which produce less than 0.5% of the country’s energy.
9. Indeed I will need persuading that dashing to renewables can cut emissions rather than make them worse; this is by no means certain given that the increased use of bioenergy, such as wood or corn ethanol, driven by climate policies, is indeed making them worse.11 Meanwhile shale gas use in the USA has led to a far greater cut in emissions than
any other technology, yet it is opposed every step of the way by climate alarmists.
10. Finally, you might make the argument that even a very small probability of a very large and dangerous change in the climate justifies drastic action. But I would reply that a very small probability of a very large and dangerous effect from the adoption of large-scale
renewable energy, reduced economic growth through carbon taxes or geo-engineering also justifies extreme caution. Pascal’s wager cuts both ways.
At the moment, it seems highly likely that the cure is worse than disease.
We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.
Matt Ridley: A Lukewarmer’s Ten Tests
I have written about climate change and energy policy for more than 25 years. I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself. This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it.
For the benefit of supporters of climate change policy who feel frustrated by the reluctance of people like me to accept their assurances, here is what they would need to do to change my mind.
1. I need persuading that the urban heat island effect has been fully purged from the surface temperature record. Satellites are showing less warming than the surface thermometers, and there is evidence that local warming of growing cities, and poor siting of thermometers, is still contaminating the global record. I also need to be convinced that the adjustments made by those who compile the global temperature records are justified. Since 2008 alone, NASA has added about 0.1C of warming to the trend by unexplained “adjustments” to old records. It is not reassuring that one of the main surface temperature records is produced by an extremist prepared to get himself arrested (James Hansen).
2. Despite these two contaminating factors, the temperature trend remains modest: not much more than 0.1 C per decade since 1979. So I would need persuading that water vapour will amplify CO2’s effect threefold in the future but has not done so yet. This is what the models assume despite evidence that clouds formed from water vapour are more likely to moderate than amplify any warming.
3. Nor am I convinced that sulphate aerosols and ocean heat uptake can explain the gap between model predictions and actual observations over the last 34 years. Both are now well understood and provide insufficient excuse for such an underperformance. Negative cloud feedback, leading to total feedbacks being modest, is the more plausible explanation.
4. The one trend that has been worse than expected – Arctic sea ice – is plausibly explained by black carbon (soot), not carbon dioxide. Soot from dirty diesel engines and coal-fired power stations is now reckoned to be a far greater factor in climate change than before; it is a short-lived pollutant, easily dealt with by local rather than global action. So you would need to persuade me that this finding, by explaining some recent climate change, does not further reduce the likely sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Certainly, it “buys time”.
5. Even the Met Office admits that the failure of the models to predict the temperature standstill of the last 16 years is evidence that natural factors can match man-made ones. We now know there is nothing unprecedented about the level and rate of change of temperature today compared with Medieval, Roman, Holocene Optimum and other post-glacial periods, when carbon dioxide levels did not change significantly, but temperatures did. I would need persuading that natural factors cannot continue to match man-made ones.
6. Given that we know that the warming so far has increased global vegetation cover, increased precipitation, lengthened growing seasons, cause minimal ecological change and had no impact on extreme weather events, I need persuading that future warming will be fast enough and large enough to do net harm rather than net good. Unless water-vapour-supercharged, the models suggest a high probability of temperatures changing less than 2C, which almost everybody agrees will do net good.
7. Nor is it clear that ecosystems and people will fail to adapt, for there is clear evidence that adaptation has already vastly reduced damage from the existing climate – there has been a 98% reduction in the probability of death from drought, flood or storm since the 1920s, for example, and malaria retreated rapidly even as the temperature rose during the twentieth century.
8. So I cannot see why this relatively poor generation should bear the cost of damage that will not become apparent until the time of a far richer future generation, any more than people in 1900 should have borne sacrifices to make people today slightly richer. Or why today’s poor should subsidise, through their electricity bills, today’s rich who receive
subsidies for wind farms, which produce less than 0.5% of the country’s energy.
9. Indeed I will need persuading that dashing to renewables can cut emissions rather than make them worse; this is by no means certain given that the increased use of bioenergy, such as wood or corn ethanol, driven by climate policies, is indeed making them worse.11 Meanwhile shale gas use in the USA has led to a far greater cut in emissions than
any other technology, yet it is opposed every step of the way by climate alarmists.
10. Finally, you might make the argument that even a very small probability of a very large and dangerous change in the climate justifies drastic action. But I would reply that a very small probability of a very large and dangerous effect from the adoption of large-scale
renewable energy, reduced economic growth through carbon taxes or geo-engineering also justifies extreme caution. Pascal’s wager cuts both ways.
At the moment, it seems highly likely that the cure is worse than disease.
We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.
GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES ASTEROIDS!!
CNN Anchor Asks With a Straight Face If Global Warming Is to Blame for Asteroid | Video | TheBlaze.com
CNN Anchor Asks With a Straight Face If Global Warming Is to Blame for Asteroid | Video | TheBlaze.com
EvilBlackGun
Master
NASA data et al .....
.... yes, by all means let us evaluate the (purple here) data from NASA's hundreds of years of collecting such, and all the (purple) years of U.E.Anglia data, too. None of it matters because it was "only collected yesterday!" Here is a search you might enjoy: WIKI. "Seeking the North-East , North-West Passage." Because for CENTURIES before NASA had DREAMED any weather satellite in orbit, men have been trying to circumnavigate the globe via the North Pole. Even the Romans had the idea. Most attempts were made in the early 19th century, and all failed. The reason the voyagers even TIMED their voyages when they did, was due to the apparent thinning of the ice floating over the Arctic Ocean. Deciding to make the journey was because the ice-pack and floes around northern Greenland appeared to be thinning, also. ONE Ship from the Pacific / Aleutioan sea route DID make it to the Atlantic / Greenland sea, but the crew were all starved and frozen to death. But, still, there WAS a path, if only a man could find it. Every attempt can be tied to a WARMING OF THE SEAS AND ICE IN THE POLAR REGION. Try that on in your inconvenient truths. It computes.
.... yes, by all means let us evaluate the (purple here) data from NASA's hundreds of years of collecting such, and all the (purple) years of U.E.Anglia data, too. None of it matters because it was "only collected yesterday!" Here is a search you might enjoy: WIKI. "Seeking the North-East , North-West Passage." Because for CENTURIES before NASA had DREAMED any weather satellite in orbit, men have been trying to circumnavigate the globe via the North Pole. Even the Romans had the idea. Most attempts were made in the early 19th century, and all failed. The reason the voyagers even TIMED their voyages when they did, was due to the apparent thinning of the ice floating over the Arctic Ocean. Deciding to make the journey was because the ice-pack and floes around northern Greenland appeared to be thinning, also. ONE Ship from the Pacific / Aleutioan sea route DID make it to the Atlantic / Greenland sea, but the crew were all starved and frozen to death. But, still, there WAS a path, if only a man could find it. Every attempt can be tied to a WARMING OF THE SEAS AND ICE IN THE POLAR REGION. Try that on in your inconvenient truths. It computes.
bump
Hey gang, still think "man made global warming" isn't about control and money?
Check out the below from our big .gov types. \/
Maryland Governor Taxes Rain
Using the environment to generate taxes.
Hey gang, still think "man made global warming" isn't about control and money?
Check out the below from our big .gov types. \/
Maryland Governor Taxes Rain
Using the environment to generate taxes.
Seymour Indiana has a tax that is nearly the same for waste water treatment.They charge by the sq footage of the roof of industrial/business buildings.Explains the huge draw of new business huh?
The Earth HAS gotten warmer, approximately 1 degree, in the last century or so. That's easy enough to verify, and has been so verified.
That the Earth 'is getting warmer' is in great dispute, and it is impossible to prove that it is a 'trend', as we cannot predict the future.
In the 70's, such screwball, self-proclaimed 'authorities' proclaimed that the Earth was getting COLDER, and we'd soon be in an ice age. NOW, it's the Earth is getting WARMER, and we're all gonna drown from the melting ice caps. Blah, blah, blah.
That human beings are 'responsible' for the current warming has now been proven to be a complete fallacy, by those scientists who actually study such things, like astronomers, cosmologists, etc. And Al Gore sure as hell isn't one of them.
The MOST influential 'factor' on this planet affecting global warming, or cooling, is the biggest 'thing' ON the planet; the oceans. When they warm, the Earth gets slightly warmer, as we're experience now. When they cool, the Earth gets slightly cooler.
We place MUCH greater significance upon ourselves than we actually have. In the grand scale of things, we're insignificant. Anyone who thinks otherwise is 1) wrong-headed or 2) a lunatic, like Al Gore.
The Earth warming and cooling has happened many times in the past, and will continue to do so. It's cyclical, and it's based on precession, and where our planet happens to be at a given time in relationship to the sun, in the solar system, and in our galaxy.
That's all there is to it, and there is nothing more to it than that.
What HAS happened is the fear mongers, LIKE Al Gore, profiting famously from folks misunderstanding of how our planet, our solar system, and our galaxy actually work.
LOL, end of 'Astronomy 101' and 'Cosmology 101'.
You're
That the Earth 'is getting warmer' is in great dispute, and it is impossible to prove that it is a 'trend', as we cannot predict the future.
In the 70's, such screwball, self-proclaimed 'authorities' proclaimed that the Earth was getting COLDER, and we'd soon be in an ice age. NOW, it's the Earth is getting WARMER, and we're all gonna drown from the melting ice caps. Blah, blah, blah.
That human beings are 'responsible' for the current warming has now been proven to be a complete fallacy, by those scientists who actually study such things, like astronomers, cosmologists, etc. And Al Gore sure as hell isn't one of them.
The MOST influential 'factor' on this planet affecting global warming, or cooling, is the biggest 'thing' ON the planet; the oceans. When they warm, the Earth gets slightly warmer, as we're experience now. When they cool, the Earth gets slightly cooler.
We place MUCH greater significance upon ourselves than we actually have. In the grand scale of things, we're insignificant. Anyone who thinks otherwise is 1) wrong-headed or 2) a lunatic, like Al Gore.
The Earth warming and cooling has happened many times in the past, and will continue to do so. It's cyclical, and it's based on precession, and where our planet happens to be at a given time in relationship to the sun, in the solar system, and in our galaxy.
That's all there is to it, and there is nothing more to it than that.
What HAS happened is the fear mongers, LIKE Al Gore, profiting famously from folks misunderstanding of how our planet, our solar system, and our galaxy actually work.
LOL, end of 'Astronomy 101' and 'Cosmology 101'.
You're
netsecurity
Shooter
I find it ironic that God made a specific covenant with Noah that he would never again flood the earth, yet we have Chicken Little "sky is falling" socialists telling everyone that floods will destroy the Earth once again. God also told Noah to spread his seed to all corners of the Earth and rule the land, plants, and animals by the way, which I'd say we've done, albeit against the will of environmentalists. I do believe there was a great flood at the time of Noah. The fact that the polar ice caps retain enough water to flood the Earth is proof enough for me, since they didn't even know the ice caps existed 4,000 years ago. I guess it can happen again, I just doubt man has God-like power enough to cause it.
Regardless, we know for a fact the Ice Age occurred thousands of years ago, and it is obvious the Earth warmed itself since then, and we know cave men did not cause this warming. If environmentalist cavemen existed, surely they would've blamed the global cooling that was the ice age on some sin of mankind, right? How stupid we would think they were for believing natural changes were the result of in an angry God, yet here environmentalists are doing the same thing! We have angered mother Earth by burning too much fuel, and therefore we will be punished!
It is a fact that the warming of the '90's stopped a decade ago--there has been zero warming in a decade--so why would anyone believe in global warming? I read an article this week that global warming propagandists are now claiming the warming has moved deep under water and that it still exists, waiting to strike. Every time the facts get in the way they move the goal post to support the same tired theory they have been selling for decades and have invested so much time and (tax) money on--THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, IT DEFIES THE DEFINITION OF SCIENCE!!!
Environmentalists point to "extreme weather" as if it is something new. Katrina, "Superstorm Sandy" they say are proof. Nonsense! Katrina was a man made catastrophe because the levies broke, and Sandy was a result of multiple weather patterns merging with a standard hurricane at high tide. The Indonesian tsunami was caused by an earthquake. Yet the Chicken Littlers cite this as evidence that we should repent and give up on cheap energy. Meanwhile the UK reports that zero people have died from global warming, while thousands have died from freezing to death because the price (and government taxation in the name of global warming )of heating oil. Global warming environmentalist freaks have blood on their hands, but that is fine with them because they aren't Christian and instead believe humans are a disease over the Earth that needs eradicated. These people are pure evil and I can't get behind a word of their lies.
Regardless, we know for a fact the Ice Age occurred thousands of years ago, and it is obvious the Earth warmed itself since then, and we know cave men did not cause this warming. If environmentalist cavemen existed, surely they would've blamed the global cooling that was the ice age on some sin of mankind, right? How stupid we would think they were for believing natural changes were the result of in an angry God, yet here environmentalists are doing the same thing! We have angered mother Earth by burning too much fuel, and therefore we will be punished!
It is a fact that the warming of the '90's stopped a decade ago--there has been zero warming in a decade--so why would anyone believe in global warming? I read an article this week that global warming propagandists are now claiming the warming has moved deep under water and that it still exists, waiting to strike. Every time the facts get in the way they move the goal post to support the same tired theory they have been selling for decades and have invested so much time and (tax) money on--THAT IS NOT SCIENCE, IT DEFIES THE DEFINITION OF SCIENCE!!!
Environmentalists point to "extreme weather" as if it is something new. Katrina, "Superstorm Sandy" they say are proof. Nonsense! Katrina was a man made catastrophe because the levies broke, and Sandy was a result of multiple weather patterns merging with a standard hurricane at high tide. The Indonesian tsunami was caused by an earthquake. Yet the Chicken Littlers cite this as evidence that we should repent and give up on cheap energy. Meanwhile the UK reports that zero people have died from global warming, while thousands have died from freezing to death because the price (and government taxation in the name of global warming )of heating oil. Global warming environmentalist freaks have blood on their hands, but that is fine with them because they aren't Christian and instead believe humans are a disease over the Earth that needs eradicated. These people are pure evil and I can't get behind a word of their lies.
But, but, what about all those camp fires?
Looks like many of the "97%" of climate scientist are are starting to dispute the IPCC.
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."
Dr. Tol found 7 papers falsely classified and 112 omitted,
What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.
The "less" claim is based on alternative solar models (e.g. ACRIM instead of PMOD) and also on the observation that part of the observed global warming might be due to urban heat island effect, and not to CO2.
By using the 50% borderline a lot of so-called "skeptical works" including some of mine are included in their 97%."
Dr. Tol found 7 papers falsely classified and 112 omitted,
Tol: "WoS lists 122 articles on climate change by me in that period. Only 10 made it into the survey.
I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.
...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"
Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
I would rate 7 of those as neutral, and 3 as strong endorsement with quantification. Of the 3, one was rated as a weak endorsement (even though it argues that the solar hypothesis is a load of bull). Of the 7, 3 were listed as an implicit endorsement and 1 as a weak endorsement.
...from 112 omitted papers, one strongly endorses AGW and 111 are neutral"
Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:
"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."
In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.
I would classify my paper in Cook et al's category (7): Explicit rejection with quantification. My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.
With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2."
Many more here.Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".
Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:
"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."
In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.
I would classify my paper in Cook et al's category (7): Explicit rejection with quantification. My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.
With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2."
Many more here.Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
The earth hasn't warmed for at least 17 years (maybe 23 depending on how you want to define "warming") but let's just accept that it hasn't warmed since 1997, and in fact has gotten cooler in the past 100 months.
There have been other recent warmings besides the 1975-1998, notably 1860-80 and 1910-40. What's should be striking to any of the Warmists is that the data show that the warming in each of these three periods was the same - .16 C/decade.
So our esteemed "climate scientists" could not let such a thing stand as actual data that minimizes the scare tactics. I mean who is going to be driven to action to counteract something that seems to occur on a regular basis, right? They changed the data and made the older warming periods less warm and the latest one warmer!
If you can't beat 'em, change the rules!
The real answer to all the global warming BS is simply this:
Green = Red
There have been other recent warmings besides the 1975-1998, notably 1860-80 and 1910-40. What's should be striking to any of the Warmists is that the data show that the warming in each of these three periods was the same - .16 C/decade.
So our esteemed "climate scientists" could not let such a thing stand as actual data that minimizes the scare tactics. I mean who is going to be driven to action to counteract something that seems to occur on a regular basis, right? They changed the data and made the older warming periods less warm and the latest one warmer!
If you can't beat 'em, change the rules!
The real answer to all the global warming BS is simply this:
Green = Red
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere
Members online
- Ethanhoosier1
- zeebandit
- Andyccw
- Ark
- STEEL CORE
- efd1295
- nucular
- alc1985
- gds
- gdog243
- HoosierHunter07
- cavemike
- Demoderb1989
- WebSnyper
- bgcatty
- Larry!!!
- Ozzy17
- Cavman
- Romero Zombie
- Firehawk
- bf5565
- JimH
- flyingsquirrel
- KellyinAvon
- Hawkeye7br
- snorko
- dnurk
- Gabriel
- VinceU1
- printcraft
- KLB
- tonto
- Leadeye
- jkaetz
- Super Bee
- BIGE7.62
- Snapdragon
- bwframe
- pewpewINpewpew
- gpasp101
- Mark-DuCo
- devildog178
- hoosier88
- EODFXSTI
- MrSmitty
- JRR85
- cobber
- JayCo
- FFJakeT
- Telliott