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.
It's hard to believe, really, that we are a point in this country where the general consensus is that uneducated churchgoers in rural America who believe in talking snakes and a global flood are more trustworthy on matters of climate science than actual scientists. Most of these people don't even know the difference between weather and climate. Any time a snowstorm comes through the South, they are basically saying "Gotcha liberal scientists, see the snow? Climate change is a hoax!!" Those are the people running our country now.
I find it hard to believe that you keep falling for it. In my lifetime, I've seen numerous iterations of the catastrophes that are to befall our planet. Global cooling, second ice age, the disappearing ozone, acid rain, global warming, climate change and some that I'm sure I forgot. And you guys change your narrative right along with them, never questioning why it keeps changing.
Call us deniers, doesn't bother us a bit...we are intelligent enough to see through the smokescreen. If you can't tell me what the temperature will be tomorrow, with 100% certainty, maybe you can see why we're skeptical that you know what it will be in 100 years.
Science is universal, testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable.
That's right, especially when the so-called models aren't universal, testable, repeatable, observable or falsifiable
The same thing that causes all Inter-Glacial Periods.
How warm was Greenland during the last interglacial period?
The NEEM paradox has emerged from an estimated large local warming above the preindustrial level (7.5 ± 1.8 °C at the deposition site 126 kyr ago without correction for any overall ice sheet altitude changes between the LIG and the preindustrial period) based on water isotopes, together with limited local ice thinning, suggesting more resilience of the real Greenland ice sheet than shown in some ice sheet models. Here, we provide an independent assessment of the average LIG Greenland surface warming using ice core air isotopic composition (δ15N) and relationships between accumulation rate and temperature. The LIG surface temperature at the upstream NEEM deposition site without ice sheet altitude correction is estimated to be warmer by +8.5 ± 2.5 °C compared to the preindustrial period
[emphasis mine]
My Note to President Trump on the Climate Accords 5-31-2017
By way of background, I am a far-left Democrat who voted for Hillary. Nevertheless I oppose the Paris Climate Accords. See the note I posted on the White House website "e-mail" system:
I am writing to support the Trump Administration's inclination to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords ("Climate Accords"). I am by no means a conservative. I think that the Climate Accords have very little to do with climate and a lot to do with an incoherent hash of politically correct but impractical agendas. I will turn to the terms of the Climate Accords themselves but I note that they have a lengthy codicil on "gender equality." While that may be a praiseworthy goal it has little to do with climate.
The Climate Accords work by setting an unreachable U.S. goal of 40% reduction of greenhouse gases ("GHG") from 1990 levels. The year 1990 as a base year is itself grossly unfair to the U.S. but I digress. The failure to reach an unmeetable target will trigger an obligation to pay a large amount into a "climate adjustment fund" (the "Fund"). The Fund itself will offer full-time employment to a large contingent of bureaucrats. That to my mind is why Europe so strongly favors the Climate Accords. Such money as is distributed by the Fund for "climate adjustment" will go to Third and Fourth World "leaders" with little or no accountability for how it is spent. Can one, for example, seriously imagine leaders such as Assad, Kabila, or Mugabe using the money to protect their people from climate change.
This note purposely does not address whether or not climate change is real, or if real, if it is man-made. The Climate Accords will do little to change a single temperature on a single day in a single place. But they will cost the U.S. and its citizens lots of money, and possibly significant growth and employment. I urge you to ignore the bleats of the elites and withdraw the U.S. from the Climate Accords. And in the process make the withdrawal effective immediately, disregarding the unconstitutional and non-binding four year period placed on withdrawal. The Climate Accords were not ratified by Congress, are not a treaty and are not legislation.
Science is universal, testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable.
This is what science can be, not what it is. This is what science is supposed to be, not what it is. This is what science has the potential of becoming, when practiced by professional scientists who are dispassionate and objective, and trained and grounded in the philosophy of Reason, as promulgated by Aristotle et al. Scientists who earn their money in the free market, instead of being handed welfare checks by left wing universities and government panels with stolen money from taxpayers to dole out to scientist welfare-mamas.
Today's scientists are left wing charlatan political hacks. They have an agenda, and nothing is going to stop that agenda. Today's scientists are about political power and stopping Capitalism, which they fervently hate. Not as much as they hate Freedom, but close, since Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with Freedom.
Today's fake scientists are primarily social justice warriors, which is why you find so much garbage on websites like that of the IPCC that obsesses itself with income inequality and gender politics and identity politics and class warfare. One might wonder why a website that is ostensibly about climate change has so much content about identity politics. I don't wonder that, because I knew that science was debauched decades ago.
The entire site is a sewer of collectivism and identity politics interwoven with the "science" of climate change.
So, science can be "universal, testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable" if practiced by honest people interested only in the truth of their research. We no longer see that in climate scientists. They are handmaidens of the state, they are metaphysical sissies, and they exist to advance the leftist-statist agenda of envy, hatred, and the obsession with destroying freedom.
The planet Earth is only a tool and a smokescreen. Climate change? It's incidental. The tyranny has to be built on something, and climate change will do for now until another rationale gains emotional favor.
I read through most of the pages, and then got lost.
Here's a question for Trump: how will the planet feed 9 billion people?
That's a question currently considered by children in high school, and first year university students.
What does the USA have for an answer?
Please consider that if people cannot find food in their own country, they will find a country where they can find food. Think twice here. What is the end game, and how to best ensure it. What is Trump's end game? How is Trump's end game different from the middle class america end game of fresh water, food, and a banking-fraud free home?
Good!!!! Was a crap deal anyway!!! The tears will be falling in Europe!
I think EPA-haters and global warming deniers are a bunch of ignorant, trashy people who have no respect for the fact that nature makes the economy and their paychecks possible in the first place. They have totally skewed priorities, dissing nature for a little extra money while being ungrateful for the source of life itself. Who raised such a pack of shallow dummies?
What do global warming deniers want, anyhow? Do they think wasting finite oil at a faster clip is intelligent? The word conservative used to have conserve as its root. Now it's just about greed and low-brow stupidity.
One good thing about Trump is that he's one of the few global leaders who's agreed that wind turbines are a blight on the landscape. If he ends up dropping out of the Paris agreement, the least he can do is get Rick Perry and others to cut wind power subsidies. Unfortunately, the association of a cretin like Trump with the anti-wind power cause has done more harm than good. The wind people like to claim that anyone against their landscape-thrashers is either a NIMBY or climate-denier, and in Trump's case both may be true (hard to tell if he cares about all vistas or just his golf course). But the visceral impact of those alien-looking machines will always be very real.
There's a silver lining in this, too. If the US focuses on "bringing oil and coal back", Europeans who invest and research in cleantech will have a YUGE head start. The clean energy and tech market is forecast to be $6 trillion in 15 years, and that's a bigly market.
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.
My Note to President Trump on the Climate Accords 5-31-2017
The clean energy and tech market is forecast to be $6 trillion in 15 years, and that's a bigly market.
