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.
Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.
The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.
The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.
The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.
The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,953,657 times
Reputation: 16466
Probably right after Florida floods and a category seven hurricane hits Virginia.
Everyone knows global warming is fake - that's why California had liek 3% of the usual snowpack this year. And why the Colorado River is running dry. Or the Arctic is melting and glaciers around the world are disappearing.
Naw, it's all a conspiracy by the leftists to sell tin foil hats.
Probably never. I almost wish I could still be alive in a hundred years so I could laugh my a** off at those lunatics when none of their predictions come true.
I had to look up the Cato Institute to see if there was a possibility the article was biased in some way. I found out that it's a libertarian think tank funded by the Koch brothers who are notorious for skewing scientific data to suit their anti-climate change agenda. And that's fine... The ordinary bias of a particular institute is not damning in and of itself but it does make me skeptical at first.
Having witnessed firsthand the penchant for lying that Creationists use in their "this is science" routine, call me skeptical of this article, because Creationists do the same thing. It's a common tactic to create a fancy sounding scientific name, hire a few down on their luck scientists to make things sound official, and then have them skew data with articles that don't really explain anything at all.
Basically, this style and format, if you alter what the topic is, could be copied and pasted from a Creationist website. I was actually kind of surprised by the length of the article. I was expecting a scientific sort of rebuttal with an explanation of the data, how it was calculated, why things were wrong, etc... To be perfectly honest, we should grow skeptical when we're not given those things. After all, pretty much anyone could write a rebuttal on a topic we're not familiar with, and if they have PhD after their name, it makes it sound credible. That's why they ordinarily put all the data in their articles and publications - so others can pick through it and critique it...
Though perhaps there are arguments that could be made, this article falls short of that and honestly doesn't deserve publication.
well to be fair using less CO2 producing products is a good thing.
Just that they have an extremist view of things.
tell them to stop their using of cars and luxury items first as it takes way more to produce their luxury goods than it does for the common man.
and tell them not to even dare impose a CO2 tax on us like they tried a few years ago.
carbon swaps/derivatives yeah HELL NO.
A big scam they saw as an opportunity to levy a tax on every living being on the planet
we were very close in becoming their slaves.
But alas they need to factor in global cooling thanks to poles shifts and magnetic fluctuations
I remember watching the news one time and a guest mentioned that gravity may have an impact on weather and these news clowns were laughing at him.
Yep I knew gravity can effect weather and was like wow these people are idiots.
maybe a meteorologist may not mention it but yeah gravity does in ways effect weather.
no duh.
sun spots and flares as well.
cosmic radiation
not just CO2.
the CO2 scientists need to sit down and re examine their research.
in general though limiting CO2 production is a good thing.
but don't force it down our throats.
moderation is key and
one should start by setting an example from the top not telling the bottom to pay more so that the top can produce more CO2
rich that support CO2 campaigns should set examples such as
1. not doing drugs themselves- war on drugs right?
2. not using cars and instead use public transit everywhere.
3. forego their luxury vehicles + boats.
4. down size their homes to less than million dollar houses.
meaning live modestly
5. forego their kobe beef steaks that cost 100 dollars each.
6. stop drinking expensive wine.
all these things take lots of CO2 to produce after all.
The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments.
Who did this analysis? A partisan hack at the Koch controlled Cato Institute?
How does it compare with others' analysis?
Probably right after Florida floods and a category seven hurricane hits Virginia.
Everyone knows global warming is fake - that's why California had liek 3% of the usual snowpack this year. And why the Colorado River is running dry. Or the Arctic is melting and glaciers around the world are disappearing.
Naw, it's all a conspiracy by the leftists to sell tin foil hats.
Do you have a comment about the material in the link?
I had to look up the Cato Institute to see if there was a possibility the article was biased in some way. I found out that it's a libertarian think tank funded by the Koch brothers who are notorious for skewing scientific data to suit their anti-climate change agenda. And that's fine... The ordinary bias of a particular institute is not damning in and of itself but it does make me skeptical at first.
Having witnessed firsthand the penchant for lying that Creationists use in their "this is science" routine, call me skeptical of this article, because Creationists do the same thing.
I seriously doubt that Cato is a creationist organization. Do you have any facts?
Quote:
It's a common tactic to create a fancy sounding scientific name, hire a few down on their luck scientists to make things sound official, and then have them skew data with articles that don't really explain anything at all.
So, do you agree or disagree with the facts in the link?
Quote:
Basically, this style and format, if you alter what the topic is, could be copied and pasted from a Creationist website.
There you go again. Is everyone that you disagree with a creationist?
Quote:
I was actually kind of surprised by the length of the article. I was expecting a scientific sort of rebuttal with an explanation of the data, how it was calculated, why things were wrong, etc... To be perfectly honest, we should grow skeptical when we're not given those things. After all, pretty much anyone could write a rebuttal on a topic we're not familiar with, and if they have PhD after their name, it makes it sound credible. That's why they ordinarily put all the data in their articles and publications - so others can pick through it and critique it...
Though perhaps there are arguments that could be made, this article falls short of that and honestly doesn't deserve publication.
So what facts in the graph do you disagree with? Or is your fear of creationists just overwhelming your ability to evaluate facts?
So what facts in the graph are wrong? You did read the graph, right?
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.
