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 not a hoax, just a strategy. You put a bunch of broke third world countries in a big room on the Upper East Side with high ceilings and they are going to figure something out.
With some help from Elton John, Bon Jovi and a bunch of government bureaucrats and university professors.
In the Northeast all of our heat records are from 1936, to be almost exact, July 9, 1936. Our worst droughts were in the 1950s and 1960s, cresting in 1964 and 1965. In 1965 we had under 27" of rain. 49' is now considered "normal" based on a 30 year moving average, but in the 1960's the 30 year moving average was around 40", give or take.
Our rainiest years were 1972 and 1983, both super El Niño years.
In 1954, when I was 6, we had 13 days in a row above 100 degrees, the hottest was 113. This has been a hotter than normal summer and we have hit 100 once. Right now we are in the upper 80s daily and lower 60s at night, and it is supposed to last another 7-10 days.
And similar scientific techniques and methodologies (computer modelling) are used for prediction of both. And those methodologies and that prediction has not performed well and will not perform well for decades or centuries. Climate science is in its infancy. So no, I am not rolling back my use of fossil fuels based on these models and projections. Especially when ALL the practitioners using these predictive models have the exact same politics and leftist agenda. So cooking the books is quite possible, especially since they must "publish or perish", and create armageddonistic fear to keep the grant money flowing. They hated the oil companies before AGW was even a hint of a thing. The advent of AGW is just another tool in the redistributive toolbox of tyranny.
And the third world hellholes all sign on at the United Nations, because the Paris Accords will transfer wealth to their coffers. It's a gravy train, or more accurately, a pig trough. I don't want my country contributing to that.
I disagree -weather forecasting for my area, does a great job of forecasting the weather.
Lots of science and technology is still in it's infancy. I doubt that you would be as skeptical of those though, as your skepticism seems to comes from ideology first and foremost, rather than a science based counter view.
I disagree -weather forecasting for my area does a great job of forecasting the weather.
Lots of science and technology is still in it's infancy, but I doubt that you would be as skeptical of those, as your skepticism seems to comes from ideology first and foremost, rather than a science based counter view.
In many areas of science and technology, you don’t have entire professions in political lockstep. A cross section of mechanical engineers will not produce 100% consensus on redistribution of wealth. Or much of anything else. A cross section of climate scientists will all agree that carbon taxation and redistribution is a good idea. So I am not suspicious of conclusions agreed upon by a group of mechanical engineers. Climate scientists, on the other hand, are simply not to be trusted. They share an ideology and an agenda. Plus they reside and perambulate through university culture, which we all know to be strongly leftist-collectivist. They couldn’t escape their agenda and structure even if they wanted to. That is why I do not trust the climate science-industrial complex. It is incestuous and represents a global echo chamber favoring tyranny, collectivism, statism, and cronyism.
In many areas of science and technology, you don’t have entire professions in political lockstep. A cross section of mechanical engineers will not produce 100% consensus on redistribution of wealth. Or much of anything else. A cross section of climate scientists will all agree that carbon taxation and redistribution is a good idea. So I am not suspicious of conclusions agreed upon by a group of mechanical engineers. Climate scientists, on the other hand, are simply not to be trusted. They share an ideology and an agenda. Plus they reside and perambulate through university culture, which we all know to be strongly leftist-collectivist. They couldn’t escape their agenda and structure even if they wanted to. That is why I do not trust the climate science-industrial complex. It is incestuous and represents a global echo chamber favoring tyranny, collectivism, statism, and cronyism.
Is it really an all or nothing proposition for climate scientists though? I've known a few people involved in climate study, and I sense that the prevailing view is that the status quo will be more likely to produce technology based solutions, than financial reward/penalty schemes.
There's an old meme that goes: If they can find a way to tax the air, they'll do it.
And, here we are.
Computer models without real sampling are nothing but speculation; nothing but a GUESS!
GIGO forever!
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.
