"Throughout its 4.54-billion-year history, Earth has experienced multiple periods of temperatures hotter than today’s. But as far as the “recent” past, a study published in March 2013 concluded that global average temperature is now higher than it has been for most of the last 11,300 years." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-25-2014).]
Study: Glaciers in northern Antarctic Peninsula melting faster than ever "An international team of researchers, which includes Professor Neil Glasser from Aberystwyth University, has discovered that small glaciers that end on land around the Antarctic Peninsula are highly vulnerable to slight changes in air temperature and may be at risk of disappearing within 200 years.
Temperatures are currently rising rapidly in the Antarctic Peninsula. Because warmer air holds more moisture, the amount of snowfall has also increased. Some researchers have suggested that this may offset the melting of the glaciers in the future. However, this study found that even small increases in air temperature increased melting so much that even large amounts of extra snowfall could not prevent glacier recession. " Source.
Study: Sharks in Acidic Waters Avoid Smell of Food "Elevated carbon dioxide levels impaired the odor-tracking behavior of the smooth dogfish, a shark whose range includes the Atlantic Ocean off the eastern United States. Adult sharks significantly avoided squid odor after swimming in a pool of water treated with carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide concentrations tested are consistent with climate forecasts for midcentury and 2100. The study suggests that predator-prey interactions in nature could be influenced by elevated carbon dioxide concentrations of ocean waters." Source.
Article: European nations are increasing electricity generation using no-carbon sources "Penetration rates of no-carbon generation have increased from 50% to 56% in recent years in Europe, as European Union countries work toward renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions targets. Increasing levels of renewable generation, along with nuclear generation, mean that many European countries generate a large share of their electricity from no-carbon sources."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-25-2014).]
"Not only has the IPCC done remarkably well in projecting future global surface temperature changes thus far, but it has also performed far better than the few climate contrarians who have put their money where their mouth is with their own predictions." Source
Just a couple for fun for you, because anything refuting your assertions seems to stimulate multiple posts. But, honestly, that is ok. It is obvious this is your thing.
But if you look at your very own map, you see that from 1998 to now, the temperature hasn't increased. So only if you draw your prediction lines using 1996, can you draw a line that makes the "projection" "accurate". And the projection doesn't give any explanation for why ZERO "anthropogenic global warning" for the past 15-16 years.
Did you now in 2010 there were going to be 50 million "climate refugees", mostly due to your melting ice increasing ocean levels? That was why in 2005, we needed to ACT NOW!!!!!! Well, it is 2014. And no climate refugees. So now it the articles predicting 2010 have been pulled (awkward), but wait, have just been replaced with the same obviously wrong prediction but now for 2020. Good thing global temperatures are going up so that the 50 million climate refugee prediction for 2020 can come true. so we had better ACT NOW!!!!!
Yeah. We really better act now. Since per your own chart, temperatures have not increased since 1998. So look out for the melting ice and rising ocean levels due to, well, the same temperature for the past 15 years. Wait. I didn't really say that right. I should have said, LOOK OUT!!!!! Not just look out.
The Pentagon commissioned summary of "accepted global warming science" and the "plausible" nightmare scenarios over the next 10 years (which ten year period ended last year with NONE of the scenarios coming close to happening) would be a fun (and funny) read, if one had the time.
"An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security"
The year 2000 predictions of no more snow ever in England and Scotland due to global warming. Followed by heavy snow falls at times over the next decade.
Gore claiming that some models predict a 75% chance that there will be NO arctic ice cap in 5-7 years. That was 2009.
You know those already, though. I could go on and on. These predictions were not from "crackpots". These were from esteemed individuals in your "consensus of scientists".
And their consistent WILD failures in their predictions for decades now, BASED ON THEIR SCIENTIFIC MODELS, disqualifies them from being taken seriously.
But don't blame me. And don't call me a denier. I'm not a denier. I'm an objective observer. They have had decades of predictions and claims based on "the settled science". Don't be upset at me that they failed.
A report published by the Climate Council this week warned that a global warming-driven sea-level rise of 0.5-2 metres could displace between 1.2 and 2.2 million people from the Caribbean region and the Indian and Pacific Ocean islands, assuming no adaptation occurs. But as the info-graphic below shows, climate related displacement is already happening.
Part of a report published on Wednesday by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) as part of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), it shows that 22 million people were internally displaced in 2013 as a result of disaster, three times as many as those internally displaced by conflict. The report, which has been released ahead of next week’s UN climate summit in New York, also finds that risk of displacement has doubled over the last 40 years.
But if you look at your very own map, you see that from 1998 to now, the temperature hasn't increased. So only if you draw your prediction lines using 1996, can you draw a line that makes the "projection" "accurate". And the projection doesn't give any explanation for why ZERO "anthropogenic global warning" for the past 15-16 years.
As it's been stated about a dozen times in this thread already, 1998 was an anomaly. It was an unusually hot year. Using it to claim zero warming is cherry picking data to the most obvious extent. Start with ANY YEAR before 1998 and you have a warming trend. Use 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 and you still have a warming trend. Using data from the NOAA, it wouldn't still show a warming trend until you use 2010 as your starting year. This ignores that 2014 is the hottest year on record so far.
quote
Gore claiming that some models predict a 75% chance that there will be NO arctic ice cap in 5-7 years. That was 2009.
Bringing up Gore again? He is not a scientist. He is a politician. Bringing him up while trying to argue the science makes you look foolish.
quote
But don't blame me. And don't call me a denier. I'm not a denier. I'm an objective observer. They have had decades of predictions and claims based on "the settled science". Don't be upset at me that they failed.
"...22 million were internally displaced in 2013 as a result of disaster..."
This is part of the dishonesty. The "prediction" was going to be 50 million people who's homes were permanently lost due to the effects of global warming. Not displaced temporarily as a result of disaster, which has been going on a long time. Why would you even post something like that as substantiation of their ludicrous climate refugee claim?
OK. So 1998 was an "anomoly". Then per the chart, it hasn't risen since 2002. So a decade.
Regarding bringing up Gore, Gore based his statements on his review of the "scientists". It doesn't make me look foolish. It makes Gore look foolish.
But interesting. I mentioned Gore, which you commented on. Why did you focus on that? I gave multiple other ridiculously wrong predictions that were from your own acclaimed expert climatologists. You didn't deem it worthy of commenting on those, and only on the politician who was basing his predictions on those scientists. Why did you do that? Regarding what is my alternative, it would be to have a realistic long term energy plan that didn't cripple economies. And that didn't require forced investment in non-financially viable alternatives until they were viable. But we don't have the luxury of a reasoned, long term plan because we must, and I repeat multiple EXPERT CLIMATOLOGISTS, ACT NOW!!!!!!!!
Except we really don't need to act now, because when those same climatologists screamed we must act now based on their dire predictions, their time limits have passed and nothing remotely close to their ludicrous claims have happened.
Thereby disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
I mean, if your implication was that Al Gore is a buffoon politician, well, he is in good company with your expert climatologists in ludicrous claims that failed to happen.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Just a couple for fun for you, because anything refuting your assertions seems to stimulate multiple posts. But, honestly, that is ok. It is obvious this is your thing.
There’s all sorts of claims about refuting anthropogenic global warming. The public perception, especially on the conservative side of the spectrum believes this theory is hotly contested.
But from what you say here, I get the impression you don’t believe I will be objective. I would argue that’s not correct. While I can be hard headed, if you show me a genuine problem, I will seek a genuine answer. Here’s a recent case.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: But if you look at your very own map, you see that from 1998 to now, the temperature hasn't increased. So only if you draw your prediction lines using 1996, can you draw a line that makes the "projection" "accurate". And the projection doesn't give any explanation for why ZERO "anthropogenic global warning" for the past 15-16 years.
If there’s been zero global arming since 1998, why is 2010 the warmest year on record? Why is 2005 the second warmest on record? Why is 2014 shaping up to be at least a top 5 warmest on record?
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Did you now in 2010 there were going to be 50 million "climate refugees", mostly due to your melting ice increasing ocean levels? That was why in 2005, we needed to ACT NOW!!!!!! Well, it is 2014. And no climate refugees. So now it the articles predicting 2010 have been pulled (awkward), but wait, have just been replaced with the same obviously wrong prediction but now for 2020. Good thing global temperatures are going up so that the 50 million climate refugee prediction for 2020 can come true. so we had better ACT NOW!!!!!
I’m going to need a little more than anecdotes to work with.
If your examples are from news articles, I suggest you look at the scientific literature instead.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: The Pentagon commissioned summary of "accepted global warming science" and the "plausible" nightmare scenarios over the next 10 years (which ten year period ended last year with NONE of the scenarios coming close to happening) would be a fun (and funny) read, if one had the time.
"An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security"
It’s the Pentagon’s job to research threats. The report you link to is only a thought experiment and it’s quiet clear about that.
I find it odd you mention the “plausible” part but leave out “not the most likely”, from your link: “We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.”
You're acting like this thought experiment are actual predictions of things they expected to actually happen. That's not the case.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: The year 2000 predictions of no more snow ever in England and Scotland due to global warming. Followed by heavy snow falls at times over the next decade.
I need more than anecdotes.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Gore claiming that some models predict a 75% chance that there will be NO arctic ice cap in 5-7 years. That was 2009.
Al Gore isn’t a scientists. It’s rather common for people who share your position to put Al Gore on a pedestal.
The IPCC projects the Arctic to be ice free during summer months by 2050.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: You know those already, though. I could go on and on. These predictions were not from "crackpots". These were from esteemed individuals in your "consensus of scientists".
And their consistent WILD failures in their predictions for decades now, BASED ON THEIR SCIENTIFIC MODELS, disqualifies them from being taken seriously.
But don't blame me. And don't call me a denier. I'm not a denier. I'm an objective observer. They have had decades of predictions and claims based on "the settled science". Don't be upset at me that they failed.
Those weren't anecdotes. Those were actual historical occurrences of noted climate scientists making their public predictions based on their models. I'm not going to take the time to go back and pull out the links to those articles, but they are easy to find on the internet.
You are one of the ones that are really accurate in saying anthropogenic global warming almost every time. Thanks for doing that. Just pointing out that when you wanted to discuss the graph, though, you said '...if ther has been zero global warming since 1998, why is 2010 the warmest year on record?..." and skipped the anthropogenic.
Regarding why is it the warmest, I never said it wasn't the warmest or not the warmest. I said what others have been saying. There hasn't been the consistent, ongoing, continuous rise of warming that the models predicted. And there hasn't been for 15 years. And you just refuse to acknowledge it. Well, there hasn't. From your own data.
And I never said focus on surface temperatures. It is the science climatologists that picked that measure, not me. But when it doesn't fit their models, oh, well, you can't just focus on surface temperatures. Really? Because for the past 2 decades you said we should. I said plausible and not most likely, because that is what people in the media jumped on and tried to react to. And because plausible was the point. The climatologist was saying, I really think this is something that could happen. And it didn't. Nothing remotely close to it happened either.
I know Al Gore isn't a scientist. He said he was representing his views based on his conclusions from the science. Not my fault. Regarding Exxon Mobil, these are business people. They don't really care what is genuinely scientific and what isn't. They care about making a profit, and public perception. It doesn't mean they believe it. It is irrelevant to them. They have to acknowledge the public perception, the laws being made, and then they make their plans. They don't care if scientists make stupid predictions. They just care to know what they are, and what effect it has on policy. Then they will figure out a way to make money in that environment. And btw, why would you say ANYthing about Al Gore's climate policy? He isn't a scientist. That's what you just told me...when you wanted to refute a point. But when you wanted to MAKE a point, his non-scientist status didn't make any difference? My answer about your Exxon Mobil supporting Al Gore's climate policy should be, per your standard, Al Gore isn't a scientist. Regarding someone's question about what I would do, I would do what I do. I drive a car that gets 38mpg. I ride my bike. I turn the lights off when I leave a room. I'm not into trashing the environment. But I will not let a bunch of scientists who have a 2-3 decade track record of wildly innaccurate predictions have any influence on energy policy. They disqualified themselves from that.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Those weren't anecdotes. Those were actual historical occurrences of noted climate scientists making their public predictions based on their models. I'm not going to take the time to go back and pull out the links to those articles, but they are easy to find on the internet.
You just wrote over a 500 word reply but won’t take the time to search for your own evidence despite being “easy to find”.
Sorry if nobody warned you, but this thread is the land of put up or shut up. It keeps the hearsay out of the discussion.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I said what others have been saying. There hasn't been the consistent, ongoing, continuous rise of warming that the models predicted. And there hasn't been for 15 years. And you just refuse to acknowledge it. Well, there hasn't. From your own data.
You claimed there has been “ZERO anthropogenic global warning” since 1998. Yet 1998 isn’t the warmest or second warmest year on record. Very simply logic you're trying to skate around.
You refuse to acknowledge the planet is still warming. You claim predictions are “wildly inaccurate” yet according to the data I posted and you quoted, IPCC projections are much more accurate than the ‘skeptics’ global cooling predictions.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: And I never said focus on surface temperatures.
The claim “There’s been no warming in X years” ALWAYS focuses on surface temperatures and ignores the oceans by design.
Did you even know the oceans were warming too?
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: It is the science climatologists that picked that measure, not me. But when it doesn't fit their models, oh, well, you can't just focus on surface temperatures. Really? Because for the past 2 decades you said we should.
Another anecdote. What climatologist said we should only focus on surface temperatures? Source?
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I said plausible and not most likely, because that is what people in the media jumped on and tried to react to.
Oh I see, you cherry picked what you wanted to include because that's what the media did.
You feeling justified in acting like media explains this next part...
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: And because plausible was the point. The climatologist was saying, I really think this is something that could happen. And it didn't. Nothing remotely close to it happened either.
It wasn't a real prediction. It was a thought experiment.
And for the record, the scientist didn't write the report. This is on the front page of the thought experiment you're taking too seriously: "The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller. "
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I know Al Gore isn't a scientist. He said he was representing his views based on his conclusions from the science.
“He said he was” - really? And you just blindly believed Al Gore in this one instance? How convenient.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Regarding Exxon Mobil, these are business people. They don't really care what is genuinely scientific and what isn't. They care about making a profit, and public perception. It doesn't mean they believe it. It is irrelevant to them. They have to acknowledge the public perception, the laws being made, and then they make their plans. They don't care if scientists make stupid predictions. They just care to know what they are, and what effect it has on policy. Then they will figure out a way to make money in that environment.
Always hilarious to hear Exxon Mobil is just playing along with this whole global warming thing. One of the richest most powerful companies in the world being bullied around by scientists.
Yeah, that’s “objective” thinking…
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: And btw, why would you say ANYthing about Al Gore's climate policy? He isn't a scientist. That's what you just told me...when you wanted to refute a point. But when you wanted to MAKE a point, his non-scientist status didn't make any difference? My answer about your Exxon Mobil supporting Al Gore's climate policy should be, per your standard, Al Gore isn't a scientist.
You’re failing to grasp an important distinction between scientific evidence and climate policy. On purpose, perhaps.
Well, just a quick response, but no one made you the moderator of the forum or of this thread. So this isn't your land, and I'll put up what I choose and you don't get to tell me to shut up and expect I will do it.
Your first link: "London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991." "Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said."
Your second link: "South-east England has the worst snow it has seen for 18 years, causing all London buses to be pulled from service and the closure of Heathrow's runways."
Something about shooting fish in a barrel goes here.
Berlin's "energy revolution" is going great—if you own a coal mine. The German shift to renewable power sources that started in 2000 has brought the green share of German electricity up to around 25%. But the rest of the energy mix has become more heavily concentrated on coal, which now accounts for some 45% of power generation and growing. Embarrassingly for such an eco-conscious country, Germany is on track to miss its carbon emissions reduction goal by 2020.
Greens profess horror at this result, but no one who knows anything about economics will be surprised. It's the result of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Energiewende, or energy revolution, a drive to thwart market forces and especially price signals, that might otherwise allocate energy resources. Now the market is striking back.
Yes do nothing that will impose any fee on any citizens of the world, no carbon tax nothing. This is not settled science and will not be since more scientists are denouncing their acceptance of the data that was falsified. The world is warming yes but how much is natural global change compared to man made is hard to distinguish. Our planet has going from a spinning hot gas to molten rock to frozen ice and back again. But our and other governments want to impose a fee and or tax and I have had it with these ass hats.
Earl
[This message has been edited by aqua-man (edited 09-28-2014).]
Yes do nothing that will impose any fee on any citizens of the world, no carbon tax nothing. This is not settled science and will not be since more scientists are denouncing their acceptance of the data that was falsified.
What scientists are denouncing their acceptance? Hint: not many.
quote
The world is warming yes but how much is natural global change compared to man made is hard to distinguish.
It's not for climate scientists, who despite the headlines, have been pretty good at predicting long term climate trends.
quote
Our planet has going from a spinning hot gas to molten rock to frozen ice and back again. But our and other governments want to impose a fee and or tax and I have had it with these ass hats.
Earl
You said yourself it's not "settled science" (which it is, but i'll play). If its not settled, then how can you be so sure that humans aren't the cause of the warming? This is denier cornerstone #1, note the complete logical fallacy.
If its not "settled science" and the consequences of AGW are catastrophic, then how can you possibly advocate doing nothing?
Could it be that you are ignoring the science completely because its inconvenient to change your lifestyle?
"If its not "settled science" and the consequences of AGW are catastrophic, then how can you possibly advocate doing nothing?"
How do we know that the consequences are catastrophic? The last ice age didn't wipe us out and I bet that one qualified as a catastrophic event. The bottom line is that we can adapt unless it is a life ending event like extintion.
"If its not "settled science" and the consequences of AGW are catastrophic, then how can you possibly advocate doing nothing?"
How do we know that the consequences are catastrophic? The last ice age didn't wipe us out and I bet that one qualified as a catastrophic event. The bottom line is that we can adapt unless it is a life ending event like extintion.
Again you use the logical fallacy - "we aren't sure its true, so we are sure its false" - that is the bedrock of denier logic. You state with fake certainty that we can adapt to AGW despite having no evidence to support it. It's possible that AGW will be milder than what scientists predict, but what if its not? What if the planet warms like the scientists say it will? How can you ignore that possibility?
Think of it this way. Let's say that by smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, you have a 50% chance of getting lung cancer by age 65. The outlook of lung cancer is generally dire, especially for a 65 year old. The logic that you use would conclude that since smoking a pack a day isn't 100% certain to kill you, the only reasonable choice is to keep smoking. Does this make any sense at all?
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 10-02-2014).]
If I can live another 300 or so years my home will be waterfront Guess I should buy a boat!
I have some land to sell you:
Click on the image to see a full 180 degree panorama of the location. Hint: It may look like a desert now, but in only 10,000 years or so this place is gonna' be the Colorado Riviera! You heard it here first.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 10-03-2014).]
You hear it all the time. Why, 97 percent of all climate scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and man is causing it. The debate is over and it's time to act! (With the very kinds of tax and regulatory policies liberals would advocate anyway.)
Did you ever think to question, though, what the basis of this 97 percent figure might be? Joseph Bast and Roy W. Spencer did. Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute, while Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite. Writing today in the Wall Street Journal, the two men examine the most frequently cited sources for this claim and find them wanting. No matter how many times you hear politicians repeat the claim, there is no 97 percent consensus:
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
That's just the beginning. Bast and Spencer examine source after supposed source of this claim and methodically destroy the credibility of every single one. You're left with the realization that this statistic, constantly cited by left-wing politicians, is completely bogus. And the very people who beat skeptics over the head with these bogus numbers are the ones who say we are "anti-science" for refusing to agree with them.
This explains a lot. It certainly explains the East Anglia e-mails, which sound like they were written by people who are trying to sustain a scam and are nervous about being exposed. It explains the insistence of the so-called "climate science community" to try to silence the work of skeptics and prevent their papers from being published. Science is not the practice of enforcing orthodoxies and siliencing apostates who question things, and yet that's what these folks do with regularity and their backers in the political realm cheer them on.
And it exposes yet again the pliability of the mainstream media, which continually cites this "97 percent" number without ever questioning where it came from or whether there is any basis for it. It reminds me of activists used to claim back in the 1980s that there were 4 million homeless, and the media would repeat the number as a matter of course without ever questioning its validity or its origin. They just figured that since they heard it all the time from people who ought to know, that was authoritative enough for them. (Besides, it seemed to be an indictment of Reagan policies, so hey, why not?)
There's all kinds of statistical nonsense floating around out there, and a lot of it that should be questioned never is because the people who ought to be doing the questioning want to believe. It's like the X-Files.
Once you recognize this, it really shows how insidious is the effort of the political class to marginalize so-called "deniers." These people are citing completely bogus data themselves - certainly to make the "consensus" claim and almost as certainly to make the claim of man-made global warming as well, not to mention their claims about what it will cause to happen in the future if we don't "act" (i.e. raise taxes, put government in charge of industry, etc.). Their entire proposition is a lie, and they're going to shut you up if you say anything about it, because the debate over, damn it!
And why should anyone be surprised about this? The same people who told you "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" now tell us there is no room for questioning them on man-made global warming or its future effects.
Usually people who are dealing in facts and truth don't have a conniption fit when someone questions them. They are confident about their assertions and they figure they can withstand a healthy challenge. If it's ever occurred to you that global warmists seem awfully insecure in the way they denounce their critics, now you know a little more about why.
When the hacked emails came out several years ago that scientists were lying about declining temperatures I was convinced this is all a big lie. It's right up there with "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and there isn't a smidgen of corruption".
Someday it will be shown that this man made global warming crap was the biggest scam ever perpetrated in history.
It's possible that AGW will be milder than what scientists predict, but what if its not? What if the planet warms like the scientists say it will? How can you ignore that possibility?
Yes. What if it's not?
I'll tell you what if it is not. The global warming scientists have painted MULTIPLE scenarios and have given MULTIPLE DIRE predictions of what will happen. And therefore we must act now!!!!!
And then I get told recently in this thread that it has been the hottest temperatures on record for 15 years (even though not going upward). OK. I've lived with the consequences of this anthropogenic global inferno for 15 years. What have been the consequences? NOTHING like what the "experts" were CONFIDENTLY predicting. I'm not against climate "science", and measuring, and trying to understand it. I'm FINE with that.
But basing public policy and major decisions in society on it? Are you kidding? That's now what has become a literal joke. DUE TO.....the horrendous track record of THE EXPERTS predicting what will be the consequences of the warming.
Again. Don't get upset with me. Get upset with them. And their absolutely laughably horrendous record of predicting consequences.
But basing public policy and major decisions in society on it? Are you kidding? That's now what has become a literal joke. DUE TO.....the horrendous track record of THE EXPERTS predicting what will be the consequences of the warming.
Climate scientists track record has been better than anyone else; ie, those who predicted global cooling (which contrary to popular belief, was not a scientific majority) and all of the self-interested parties who do no science at all (Heartland Institute).
Who should I trust?
1. Self interested businessmen and politicians that do no research at all 2. Scientists whose climate models have been mostly correct
quote
Again. Don't get upset with me. Get upset with them. And their absolutely laughably horrendous record of predicting consequences.
It baffles me how much people will bury their heads in the sand and make up excuses for things they don't want to do.
Again. I love big cars and big engines. I drive a 302 V8 AWD Ford Explorer. But I also believe in the scientific method and the integrity of the scientific community. I'm not going to make up excuses for myself just because I want cheap gasoline.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 10-08-2014).]
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I've lived with the consequences of this anthropogenic global inferno for 15 years. What have been the consequences? NOTHING like what the "experts" were CONFIDENTLY predicting.
And you cite absolutely zero sources during your unsubstantiated rant.
The bottom line is that we can adapt unless it is a life ending event like extintion. 
Guess I should buy a boat!
