Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How could eliminating US federal funding for global warming stop all the above governments from pursuing global warming?
Quote:
Richard Lindzen, a former meteorologist at MIT, in his first presentation as the newest distinguished fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, tore into global warming alarmists.
Are you honestly going to trust the Koch brothers and their corporate think tanks, more than you trust every intelligent government on this planet in matters of global warming?
And it fluctuates in ways that haven't been predictable. Moreover science knows nothing about the composition and liquid state of the core, only that it rotates at a different speed than that of the crust. It's laughable to see how recent science predicted even the material surface of Pluto before it got close to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Why don't you explain to us how you believe this is relevant to climate models?
I did earlier up thread. So called 'Climate Scientists' can't pretend away variables they cannot or won't measure, and then expect to see anything other than gross error in their models, which have never worked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
...(which have done very well, unless you have the mistaken ignorant belief that climate models are supposed to 'predict' short term weather and variability exactly when it occurs). I'm sure you've read in the tabloid press and conspiracy blogs that 'all the models are wrong!' and 'scientists are fudging data!', but that's not the reality.
Who are the 'you people' you are referring to? All the major Science Institutions worldwide? Like the National Academy of Sciences, The American Institute of Physics? The American Geophysical Union? The American Chemical Society? and their equivalents worldwide?
No, your models have bigger problems: they've never predicted squat.
They tried to predict warmer Arctic currents, shipping lanes. Wrong. They failed to forecast the heaviest freeze conditions seen by Candian Coast Guard in the Hudson Bay in 20 years.
Your always-failed models won't tell you when the Western U.S.'s drought will end. If you have the guts, you'll use one to tell us.
Is Lindzen the best that the fossil fuel industry and the Cato Institute can buy? They should get a refund.
So, you're a conspiracy theorist as well. Good to know the left is trying to keep pace with the birthers... oh wait, it was Hillary staffers who started the birther movement.
I thought people with the ability to think for themselves and question the failed models were the ones who denied science. You're doing the exact same thing because the scientists aren't what you deem "the right kind"- so, basically you're denying science.
31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics? http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...ncing-evidence
So, 31,000 scientists who have no skin in the AGW game say there's no convincing evidence. Here's the wonky part: Rather than use a hard number for those who do believe, they simply say "97% say humans do have something to do with it". Now, these would be the scientists who benefit from being pro-AGW.
The emails showing these "honest scientists" conspiring to conflate, inflate, and skew their numbers showed they can't be trusted.
As with the Clinton's, Obama, Kerry, Wiener, Waters, and a host of liberal hacks, these crony "scientists" have traded in true science for a stack of cash called grants.
How about the same scientists decrying the earth was going to freeze because of man, just 45 years ago.
A decade after the myth that was "An Inconvenient Truth":
2008: The film, An Inconvenient Truth, suggested that the sea would rise up to 20ft "in the near future" as the ice in Greenland or Western Antarctica melts.
Other documentaries have picture Britain deluged with water, showing the House of Commons submerged.
However, while some mainstream predictions project sea levels 2 to 4 meters higher by 2100, a new study published today in Science concludes that a rise in sea level between 0.8 and 2 meters is much more likely.
A decade later and the ocean has risen 5 frikkin millemeters!
AND STILL we have to hear about how the earth is a disaster because of man after every storm.
The sea ice growing! There was ice in the great lakes well in July 2015!!!
Why? According to these lunatics it's AGW!
In 50 years the mutts they raise will be saying the exact same thing, as they protest snow drifts.
In 50 years the mutts they raise will be saying the exact same thing, as they protest snow drifts.
After they're backed into Honduras by an ice age, they'll be blaming Laurentide-like glaciers a mile thick over NYC as symptomatic of Global Warming and Climate Change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Is Lindzen the best that the fossil fuel industry and the Cato Institute can buy? They should get a refund.
Climate hysterics are being paid by carbon-credit traders.
If you're brave enough, use one of your failed climate models to inform the world as to when the Western U.S.'s climate will produce enough rain to refill Lake Mead. We'll be waiting.
And it fluctuates in ways that haven't been predictable. Moreover science knows nothing about the composition and liquid state of the core, only that it rotates at a different speed than that of the crust. It's laughable to see how recent science predicted even the material surface of Pluto before it got close to it.
I did earlier up thread. So called 'Climate Scientists' can't pretend away variables they cannot or won't measure, and then expect to see anything other than gross error in their models, which have never worked.
No, your models have bigger problems: they've never predicted squat.
They tried to predict warmer Arctic currents, shipping lanes. Wrong. They failed to forecast the heaviest freeze conditions seen by Candian Coast Guard in the Hudson Bay in 20 years.
Your always-failed models won't tell you when the Western U.S.'s drought will end. If you have the guts, you'll use one to tell us.
31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics? 31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS Foundation
So, 31,000 scientists who have no skin in the AGW game say there's no convincing evidence. Here's the wonky part: Rather than use a hard number for those who do believe, they simply say "97% say humans do have something to do with it". Now, these would be the scientists who benefit from being pro-AGW.
The emails showing these "honest scientists" conspiring to conflate, inflate, and skew their numbers showed they can't be trusted.
The Oregon Petition from 1998 yet again? Oh Please. You can't be serious.
Let's have a look at what that dishonest stunt was about:
I do think. Why AGW alarmists fall flat on their faces over and over again.
But keep adjusting the data to get the result desired.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
