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.
Because they get their full salary regardless of their accuracy. They get paid to produce AGW models, not to produce something that is actually useful. That's a nice job to have. That's like paying a baseball player to bat 0.000.
------------------
Ah yes, gotcha journalism that will be debunked shortly, then the debunking of it will be ignored by people who have the attention span of a gnat.
Why would they send it to the guy on a Saturday? Probably because he has the weekend off, and they figure if they can get 48 hours of propaganda coverage before being debunked its a win.
That chart says that average temperatures have gone up since 1979 but that 3 unnamed prediction models from 1980 predicted a higher warming rate. That chart does not dispute that temperatures are rising.
That chart says that average temperatures have gone up since 1979 but that 3 unnamed prediction models from 1980 predicted a higher warming rate. That chart does not dispute that temperatures are rising.
No one disputes that temperatures are increasing in the lower Troposphere, and why wouldn`t they be?
We all know the end of the 1970s marked the end of a long cooling trend, so there is no reason temperatures wouldn`t rebound.
Also, refrigerants and propellants, in wide use before the 1987 worldwide ban, have depleted the Ozone layer allowing a greater percentage of UVB radiation to reach the Earth`s surface causing Stratospheric cooling and, to a lesser degree, Tropospheric warming.
Since Ozone depleting chemicals are now banned, the effect they have on the Ozone layer will decrease over time.
Because they get their full salary regardless of their accuracy. They get paid to produce AGW models, not to produce something that is actually useful. That's a nice job to have. That's like paying a baseball player to bat 0.000.
------------------
No-one seems to be questioning why that Cato Institute 'graphic' is using the Middle troposphere data which goes up to 50,000ft. Or why they dishonestly use datasets with different baseline periods without using offsets. Or why they realigned the 'start' of the unnamed models and unnamed datasets to the same point in same time . Or why there are no error bars (there is significant uncertainty with satellite data sets, moreso than with surface datasets.). Or why the dataset sources are not labeled. Or why there is no exlanation of methodology. Or why this 'graphic' has never been published in a Journal.
All very questionable and basically dishonest. If they wanted to be honest, they would compare apples to apples, not apples to porcupines.
Hmmm.. But I guess it served it's purpose.
Some unskeptical people swallow polished 'graphics' like that without question because it's what they want to believe.
Last edited by Ceist; 01-18-2016 at 12:29 AM..
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.
