And the fact that they have deticated their lives and careers to their study does not justify the deliberate manipulation of data to avoid an inconvenient truth.....
There was no manipulation. However, lies travel at break neck speeds in the deniosphere. The *whistleblower himself* said this. He was just unhappy an internal protocol wasn't followed. However, the study has been verified by multiple other organizations...
Tell me.. if the poles that are covered in ice. where jungles before the ice age.. how did the ice melt the time before now.. to cause the poles to get to the point of hot enough to become jungles, with no industry to be the scapegoat cause?? all we are seeing is the last part of the ice age going Melting.. it be doing this even if humans were still living in the stone age.. with no industry or emissions to blame.. BAHAHAHA.... stay stupid you are good at it.. The same science that claims the jungles were there ,is the same ones claiming the human made ice melt.. AGAIN you and many others can't put 1 and 1 together to see they are pushing the agenda of those paying the bills and not the truth.. and they don't even try to hide the facts that would show they are wrong. as people like you can't put 1 and 1 together..
Unlike you, scientists can actually do math.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Significant increase in humans on the planet means significant increase in both, as well as significant increase of domesticated livestock population. Domesticated livestock exist solely as a food source, and produce massive amounts of methane and CO2. Humans are also the ONLY species on the planet, which have significantly altered not only the landscape, but the plants and animals which make up that landscape, in an effort to make themselves more comfortable. No other species tears down entire forests, and digs up coal, uranium, and whatever other minerals there are, to create energy and use in manufacturing tools to dig up coal, uranium, and whatever else.
Massive population increase of humans and livestock. Massive deforestation. Massive mining. Massive amounts of manufacturing.
The Earth will be fine, yes. It can overcome such behavior. But only at the expense of Humanity itself. But yeah, only every scientific body on the planet, and every second and first world country, agree on the Anthropocene. I'm sure you know much more than these thousands of people who have spent generations studying climate, space, and everything else, though. Because you are posting on this Internet forum, and they are not. So therefore, you must be correct.
Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.
Can the whistleblowers be believed in this claim, originally made in 2015? And in the further claim that NOAA then rushed this doctored data into print in time for the UN’s Paris global warming summit of world leaders, to dupe any doubters that the planet was in fact overheated?
Of course the whistleblowers can be believed, and not just because NOAA repeatedly stonewalled inquiries, even failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. No one paying attention can have any doubt that the governmental global warming enterprise has been a fraud. It’s been lies from the start, starting with the very mandate of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which astonishingly ruled out factors like the sun as being worthy of investigation.
Among those astonished was the Danish delegation to the IPCC. It discovered at one of the IPCC’s early meetings a quarter-century ago that its scientists could not present their study, newly published in the prestigious journal Science, showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and solar activity. To their further astonishment, to squelch dissent the IPCC cabal set out to destroy the reputation of its chief author, falsely accusing him of fabricating data.
Dissenters from the climate change orthodoxy soon learned that, if they refused to recant, they stood to lose their jobs, their funding, and their reputations. They also learned the corollary: to get hired, to get funded, to get promoted, they needed to produce the science the authorities wanted. Governments annually spent billions of dollars on climate change research, virtually all of it commissioned to prove that the science was settled — that man-made climate change represented an existential threat to the planet.
None of the billions spent on research amounted to anything — none of the models proved reliable, none of the predictions were borne out, none of the expected effects materialized. The Arctic ice cap hasn’t disappeared, polar bear populations haven’t declined, hurricanes haven’t become more common, malaria hasn’t spread, temperatures haven’t continued to climb. What did materialize was fraud after fraud.
Climategate — the 2009 revelations of hacked emails showing scientists labouring to manipulate data and cover their tracks — was followed by Climategate 2.0 (a second damning batch of hacked emails), by Amazongate (the revelation that the IPCC’s claim of coming devastation in the Amazon was based on non-peer-reviewed research by WWF eco-activists), Glaciergate (here the IPCC relied on speculation in a popular magazine) and other scandals.
The mega-fraud was the assertion that the science was settled, which the IPCC trumpeted with claims that 2,500 scientists from around the world endorsed its findings. Except those 2,500 — a number that was soon inflated to 3,000 and then 4,000 — didn’t endorse anything. They merely reviewed some of the studies heaved into the IPCC’s maw, many of them giving the research the thumbs down.
Likewise, a much heralded claim that 97 per cent of scientists believed the planet was overheating came from a 2008 master’s thesis by a student at the University of Illinois who obtained her results by conducting a survey of 10,257 earth scientists, then discarding the views of all but 77 of them. Of those 77 scientists, 75 thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produced the 97-per-cent figure that global warming activists then touted.
In fact, major surveys show that scientists in the tens of thousands do not believe that global warming represents a threat. With the departure of president Obama and his administration, which had blocked independent investigations from being pursued, whistleblowers in greater numbers will now dare to come forward, knowing they will no longer be silenced.
One of them is Dr. John Bates, a recently retired principal scientist at NOAA, who described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures. In a press release last week, U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith thanked “Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.” This week a second press release from the same committee indicated that NOAA will be brought to account.
The blizzard of lies from NOAA and other corrupted agencies will soon be outed in excruciating detail. The greatest scientific fraud of the century will thus be laid bare, along with its craven and corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Significant increase in humans on the planet means significant increase in both, as well as significant increase of domesticated livestock population. Domesticated livestock exist solely as a food source, and produce massive amounts of methane and CO2. Humans are also the ONLY species on the planet, which have significantly altered not only the landscape, but the plants and animals which make up that landscape, in an effort to make themselves more comfortable. No other species tears down entire forests, and digs up coal, uranium, and whatever other minerals there are, to create energy and use in manufacturing tools to dig up coal, uranium, and whatever else.
Massive population increase of humans and livestock. Massive deforestation. Massive mining. Massive amounts of manufacturing.
The Earth will be fine, yes. It can overcome such behavior. But only at the expense of Humanity itself. But yeah, only every scientific body on the planet, and every second and first world country, agree on the Anthropocene. I'm sure you know much more than these thousands of people who have spent generations studying climate, space, and everything else, though. Because you are posting on this Internet forum, and they are not. So therefore, you must be correct.
AGAIN THE POLES WHERE JUNGLES BEFORE THE ICE AGE< NO INDUSTRY< NO HUMANS IN ANY NUMBER >>
One could say that the cleaner we make the air the more it helps global warming. as the dirt was blocking the sun rays.. just like a metor hitting or a volcano .. FAct that the poles where hot steamy jungles.. without all the evil man made reasons for the fraud climate change.. blows your b/s to shame
Originally posted by E.Furgal: AGAIN THE POLES WHERE JUNGLES BEFORE THE ICE AGE< NO INDUSTRY< NO HUMANS IN ANY NUMBER >>
One could say that the cleaner we make the air the more it helps global warming. as the dirt was blocking the sun rays.. just like a metor hitting or a volcano .. FAct that the poles where hot steamy jungles.. without all the evil man made reasons for the fraud climate change.. blows your b/s to shame
A study suggests this might have been the case, but it is NOT A PROVEN FACT. But if it was, why are you somehow trusting the scientists who said that, but not the same scientists who are saying that we are accelerating the warming of the Earth?
Even if it was once a tropic locale at the North Pole (the study says the North Pole was this way, not the South), it is in no way evidence that humans have not altered the environment in a way to accelerate the warming.
Facts are exactly the things you keep trying to refute, by claiming other things as facts, as some sort of preferential support for your personal position which lacks the critical thinking that scientists around the world have given the problem. But sure, keep your foot on the accelerator, and continue denying the increase of speed.
A study suggests this might have been the case, but it is NOT A PROVEN FACT. But if it was, why are you somehow trusting the scientists who said that, but not the same scientists who are saying that we are accelerating the warming of the Earth?
Even if it was once a tropic locale at the North Pole (the study says the North Pole was this way, not the South), it is in no way evidence that humans have not altered the environment in a way to accelerate the warming.
Facts are exactly the things you keep trying to refute, by claiming other things as facts, as some sort of preferential support for your personal position which lacks the critical thinking that scientists around the world have given the problem. But sure, keep your foot on the accelerator, and continue denying the increase of speed.
The fact that the animals found under the poles is FACT... unlike your libals climate fraud
A study suggests this might have been the case, but it is NOT A PROVEN FACT. But if it was, why are you somehow trusting the scientists who said that, but not the same scientists who are saying that we are accelerating the warming of the Earth?
Even if it was once a tropic locale at the North Pole (the study says the North Pole was this way, not the South), it is in no way evidence that humans have not altered the environment in a way to accelerate the warming.
Facts are exactly the things you keep trying to refute, by claiming other things as facts, as some sort of preferential support for your personal position which lacks the critical thinking that scientists around the world have given the problem. But sure, keep your foot on the accelerator, and continue denying the increase of speed.
What do you mean *if it was once a tropic locale at the North Pole*???
Also, comparing CO2 levels and temperature in the age of dinosaurs to claim humans are having no effect on the environment, is just ludicrous. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the comparison. Dinosaurs didn't strip down entire forests to build cities and mine resources. They didn't dig up oil and coal (which didn't exist yet, because the dinosaurs hadn't died and turned into oil and coal), and burn it constantly for hundreds of years. They did not reproduce uncontrollably, causing significant extinction events to other species.
There is absolutely no scientific basis for the comparison. Dinosaurs didn't strip down entire forests to build cities and mine resources.
are you certain that the combined population of "dinosaur" made up less mass than the combined mass of human beings. Are you certain that dinosaurs in no way altered their environment to improve safety, comfort and reproduction. Do you have any scientific facts that show dinosaurs being so inert to the environment that they merely walk through the woods and fields with tender steps or nibbling consciously of their environmentally impact.
quote
They didn't dig up oil and coal (which didn't exist yet, because the dinosaurs hadn't died and turned into oil and coal), and burn it constantly for hundreds of years.
Yep, the tonnage of manure gallons of urine posed no acidic affect to the ground or released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
quote
They did not reproduce uncontrollably, causing significant extinction events to other species.
And their family planning model .... just wow, wow!....
And have you any proof that those things did happen?
There is plenty of evidence that dinosaurs did not build cities, roads, and energy infrastructure, because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that they did. There have never been any groups of dinosaurs found together as a family unit with evidence of a house, fire pit, or clay pots.
There is no way to state exactly what the specific biological efficiency of those dinosaurs were. Not all dinosaurs were so massive, either. But plants were also much larger in those days, because forests weren't being intentionally removed on a massive worldwide scale, and there was a lot more CO2 in the air, with a much warmer environment, which led to much larger plants, and in some cases animals, who evolved to that size due to abundant food source.
We know plenty about the age of dinosaurs, from geological evidence. We know enough to assert that they did not act anything like humans. We know enough to conclude that the large dinosaurs were a result of an already very warm planet with lots of CO2, and we know enough to conclude that there wasn't enough CO2 to make our atmosphere as bad as that of Venus. We also know enough to conclude that a meteor hitting the earth caused an extinction event, which led to the dying of all of the massive dinosaurs, while smaller reptiles and mammals were able to survive. We also know that not all dinosaurs lived during the same time periods.
Claiming humans aren't causing any accelerated global warming, because you think it was really hot when dinosaurs lived, is just flat out stupid. There is absolutely no reason to make such a comparison, nor any evidence whatsoever to support it as even a remotely valid hypothesis.
Claiming humans aren't causing any accelerated global warming, because you think it was really hot when dinosaurs lived, is just flat out stupid. There is absolutely no reason to make such a comparison, nor any evidence whatsoever to support it as even a remotely valid hypothesis.
Can you show any global mean temperature data collected prior to 1850?
Originally posted by jmclemore: Can you show any global mean temperature data collected prior to 1850?
What is the point of this question, besides an attempt to condescend?
You must think that I cannot provide global mean temperature data, and thus scientists don't have it, as a means to support your claim, however, you would also be unable to provide it, and thus cannot provide any supporting data for your claim either. Therefore it is irrelevant.
You must think that I cannot provide global mean temperature data, and thus scientists don't have it,
No just feeding you with your own spoon. It's the same challenge you threw out at others.
Scientists do not claim to have global mean temperature records prior to 1850. Even they admit that any assumption regarding global temperatatures are just that, assumptions.
When you challenge others to show proof that does not exist, you set a standard that you yourself can not meet.
Originally posted by jmclemore: No just feeding you with your own spoon. It's the same challenge you threw out at others.
Scientists do not claim to have global mean temperature records prior to 1850. Even they admit that any assumption regarding global temperatatures are just that, assumptions.
When you challenge others to show proof that does not exist, you set a standard that you yourself can not meet.
And what do you think my claim is......
BTW - I do think there are warming treads ....
I don't challenge others to show proof I can't meet. I challenge them to provide evidence for the claims they make. However, they tend not to do so, and instead reply with arbitrary questions asking me to provide some other proof.
In this instance, I was merely stating that the claim you were defending, which is that humans have no effect on climate, because it was a tropical paradise when only a certain set of dinosaurs were roaming the earth, is utter nonsense, and has absolutely no basis in any facts whatsoever.
I was merely stating that the claim you were defending, which is that humans have no effect on climate, because it was a tropical paradise when only a certain set of dinosaurs were roaming the earth, is utter nonsense, and has absolutely no basis in any facts whatsoever.
Major miss on my claim.... Try reading my posts.
I do not think that human activity is causing "global climate change". I do however believe we have an influence that is limited and local. I believe 2 extreme political views have corrupted the facts so thoroughly it is hard to tell which facts are "facts" .
As I have said before.
There are too many reputations, financial beneficiaries and power brokers who are dependent upon on their version of the facts to maintain their stake in Federal Policy and Funding....
And what is the evidence of those dependencies - repeating the same tired answers when anyone asks, "what about this data" ....
All of a sudden it becomes a rerun of a classic scene from The Wizard Of OZ.
quote
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
Comparison 1. I don’t have a gambling problem / Our model is not flawed 2 . I can stop anytime I want / I just follow the data 3. My gambling doesn’t hurt anyone / We are making life better for all 4. I'm a professional gambler / I'm an Expert
Like gamblers they always need more time and money because they are "this close" to a pay off.....
Like gambling addicts, they keep comming back for more money with no measurable reversal of the "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE" they claim to be cause by human activity.....
So far all we have gotten from them are less money, less freedom and more government control of human activity.
And all I ask (as well as others) is to see the data that shows that their regulations and research have yielded any measurable movement in reducing the pace of "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE".
I don't care about the data that may accurately show justification for both funding and regulation. Instead show me results or get the F*** out the way so we can hire someone can fix the Sh**......
BTW, I would bet that the money we have spent on studying the problem would have yielded better results had they issued it as a refund, rebate or voucher to individuals who demonstrated a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from their home, auto , etc........
You would know what work and see a differences after the first year.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 02-23-2017).]
There was no manipulation. However, lies travel at break neck speeds in the deniosphere. The *whistleblower himself* said this. He was just unhappy an internal protocol wasn't followed. However, the study has been verified by multiple other organizations...
From the original article there absolutely was manipulation. The author used the data from ship water intakes versus data from surface buoys. Data that was known to be hotter than actual. The author removed known good data and replaced it with known flawed data. So how is this not manipulation?
Also, comparing CO2 levels and temperature in the age of dinosaurs to claim humans are having no effect on the environment, is just ludicrous. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the comparison. Dinosaurs didn't strip down entire forests to build cities and mine resources. They didn't dig up oil and coal (which didn't exist yet, because the dinosaurs hadn't died and turned into oil and coal), and burn it constantly for hundreds of years. They did not reproduce uncontrollably, causing significant extinction events to other species.
And the north pole is still moving as is the earth's magnetic field changing (weakening).
Could this also not be some sort of a factor in the climate?
It has been noticed the rate of change in Earth’s magnetic field between 2000 and 2015 shows what scientists called “rapid localized field changes”. Kind of goes along with this "rapid change" in climate?
It has also been noted that the field has weakened by about 3.5% at high latitudes over North America, perhaps allowing more cosmic radiation and charged particles that bombard Earth in those areas and as such affecting the northern ice pack?
Year 2017 to 2040 Arguments continue about what's causing global warming. The latest candidate is something to do with the Earth's magnetic field.
Year 2041 "Oh s**t, we're all ditzed. Instead of going to the beach, the beach is coming to us--everywhere there's a coastline. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have exceeded the 500 ppm threshold.
I'm not ridiculing the effects of these observed instabilities or change in the Earth's magnetic field.
Should "we" (as a species or a global culture) try to hedge our bets with persistent and systematic efforts to cap CO2 levels in the atmosphere at or close to their current level of 400 ppm? Consider that whatever we do to try to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions, it would still be many years--decades really--before any changes that we would make in terms of power generation, vehicle fuels, construction industry and building architectures, forestry management, agriculture (etc.) would be reflected in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In just two words, "lag time".
Do you ever "hedge your bets" in terms of your own personal life--investment strategies, career choices, deciding where to live..?
What is the likelihood that it would prove beneficial for humans to cap or reduce the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, even IF it can be determined that changes in the Earth's magnetic field are also contributing to global warming?
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: And the north pole is still moving as is the earth's magnetic field changing (weakling).
Could this also not be some sort of a factor in the climate?
Yes. It certainly is related. A great many things are related. There is no single silver bullet answer. However, trying to find other variables which are also part of the equation as a whole, does not negate the impact of humanity on the environment.
We are here. We are part of the environment. We are involved. No amount of denial is going to change that.
And the north pole is still moving as is the earth's magnetic field changing (weakening).
Could this also not be some sort of a factor in the climate?
It has been noticed the rate of change in Earth’s magnetic field between 2000 and 2015 shows what scientists called “rapid localized field changes”. Kind of goes along with this "rapid change" in climate?
It has also been noted that the field has weakened by about 3.5% at high latitudes over North America, perhaps allowing more cosmic radiation and charged particles that bombard Earth in those areas and as such affecting the northern ice pack?
Last year, the world’s top particle physics research facility, CERN, turned the global warming debate upside down. CERN found, in the first-ever laboratory analysis of cloud chemistry, that solar variations—not CO2 molecules—were the biggest factor in the earth’s recent warmings! To be fair, climate modelers always admitted that clouds were the biggest unsolved mystery in climate change.
CERN’s CLOUD experiment findings are now being used to model predictions for the next 100 years—and the model shows a solar sunspot minimum will soon lower earth’s temperatures by half a degree C. The long cold minimum is expected to hit about 2040, and such minimums have historically lasted about 60 years. Equally important, the solar minimum will come on the heels of the current 20-year “hiatus” in earth’s warming, which has defied the climate modelers.
Together, the two events could mean no trend increase in earth’s thermometer readings from 1998 until after 2100! That’s a century of non-warming, and neither occurrence is connected to CO2 changes. This finding demotes CO2 to a supporting role, contributing no more than one degree C warming for a redoubling of atmospheric CO2.
The new modeling was done by four European institutes, all previously strong supporters of the CO2/greenhouse-gas theory: The Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern.
The new solar quantification is vital to help us understand climate change factors. Evidence of the sun’s pivotal role in climate change is growing, but still incomplete. For example, neither the sun’s magnetic activity nor its important ultraviolet emissions are presently measurable.
CERN confirmed that the Little Ice Age was cloudier than thought. Moreover, they found modern pollution from burning fossil was less important than the computer models guessed. That means the Little Ice Age morphed naturally into a Modern Warming after 1850. The centuries-long warmings and coolings of the natural Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycle, previously gave earth the Medieval Warming (950–1300 AD), the cold Dark Ages, (60–-950 AD) the long Roman Warming (200 BC– 600 AD) as well as hundreds of earlier abrupt climate shifts.
CERN used a high-energy particle accelerator and a huge stainless steel cloud chamber to prove that when a weak sun allows more electrically charged cosmic rays to hit earth’s atmosphere, the rays shatter atmospheric molecules into tiny cloud seeds. The seeds are ionized with an electric charge, so they attract other molecules and form more low heat-deflecting clouds. CERN says ionization increases cloud numbers by one to two orders of magnitude. Moreover, the ionized clouds deflect more heat, and last longer.
CERN’s lead author, Ken Carslaw of Leeds University, wrote in the CERN Courier for December, 2016, that all the climate models cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change need to be redone—and revised downward.
Warnings that CO2 was not the controlling climate change factor have been presented for years—and ignored by climate modelers, the media, and the public.
1) In 1970, Hans Neuberger studied 4000 Old Masters paintings in the world’s museums concluding that the Medieval Warming featured sunny skies and long summers, while Little Ice Age skies were heavily overcast with cooling clouds.
2) The temperature record since 1850 shows three strong upward surges that each lasted decades: 1860–1880, 1915–1940 and 1998–2000. Phil Jones, Director of Research for the UK’s University of East Anglia, conceded on BBC radio in 2010 that the three warmings were statistically identical, but his university called only the 1976-98 warming “unprecedented” and “man-made.” It is now clear that all three temperature surges were caused by the 60-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation, recognized by fisheries experts only in 1996.
3) In 2001, NASA and MIT collaborated on a major study of the sky over the Pacific Warm Pool. They found that when the warm pool reached 30 degrees C, an “iris” opened in the sky overhead. The high, heat-sealing cirrus clouds dissipated, and huge amounts of heat escaped to space through the opening. Enough heat escaped, the researchers said, to have dealt with an instantaneous doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The earth was defending its own climate stability.
The NASA/MIT study involved top government and university scholars, geostationary satellites for cloud measurement, and the best aerial sea-surface data that could be gathered. The results were published in Science, and the American Meteorological Organization issued a press release. Again, the climate modelers, the media and the public ignored it.
The media ignored all of this evidence and the general public had no way to know. That is why the CERN study and the new follow-up by European modelers are so important. The Obama White House pushed the United States into a Paris Agreement that statistician Bjorn Lomborg says could cost $100 trillion by 2100. Worse, it would reduce earth’s temperatures by only 0.003 degrees C—even if CO2 was the Earth’s thermostat.
The Democrats rail against any effort to reduce our commitment to cutting CO2 emissions. They even set a requirement for U.S. autos to average an impossible 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025! They also launched a “war on coal,” severely disadvantaging heartland states that rely heavily on coal-fired power plants. If allowed to continue, the war on coal’s job losses will extend far beyond the coal miners in West Virginia.
EPA’s Scott Pruitt has become a very important man indeed.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 04-07-2017).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: [posts article from Townhall, "New Euro-studies Confirm Sun Dominates Earth’s Climate"; April 4, 2017]
" For the first time, model calculations show a plausible way that fluctuations in solar activity could have a tangible impact on the climate. Studies funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation expect human-induced global warming to tail off slightly over the next few decades. A weaker sun could reduce temperatures by half a degree.
There is human-induced climate change, and there are natural climate fluctuations. One important factor in the unchanging rise and fall of the Earth's temperature and its different cycles is the sun. As its activity varies, so does the intensity of the sunlight that reaches us. One of the key questions facing climate researchers is whether these fluctuations have any effect at all on the Earth's climate. IPCC reports assume that recent solar activity is insignificant for climate change, and that the same will apply to activity in the near future.
Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this assumption. Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.
--> According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. "We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change." But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum.
CNN contributor John Sutter has remarks on the possibility that President Trump will be announcing (an Executive Order, I guess--unless he can just accomplish it in this New Age with another #RealDonaldTrump tweet on Twitter) that his administration is nullifying the Obama-era pledge to commit the United States to taking actions in line with the international Paris agreement for countries all around the world to reduce their planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
So I guess that leaves anyone who is reading this with another question: Should "I" read or should I (fore)go..?
"President Trump is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord".
Good Too bad the media will ignore any benefit gained from pulling out of this Trojan horse deal.
If the United States is the largest polluter, would it be more productive to quit giving away billions to foreign governments and institutions and use those dollars to resolve our domestic environmental issues.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Significant increase in humans on the planet means significant increase in both, as well as significant increase of domesticated livestock population. Domesticated livestock exist solely as a food source, and produce massive amounts of methane and CO2. Humans are also the ONLY species on the planet, which have significantly altered not only the landscape, but the plants and animals which make up that landscape, in an effort to make themselves more comfortable. No other species tears down entire forests, and digs up coal, uranium, and whatever other minerals there are, to create energy and use in manufacturing tools to dig up coal, uranium, and whatever else.
Massive population increase of humans and livestock. Massive deforestation. Massive mining. Massive amounts of manufacturing.
The Earth will be fine, yes. It can overcome such behavior. But only at the expense of Humanity itself. But yeah, only every scientific body on the planet, and every second and first world country, agree on the Anthropocene. I'm sure you know much more than these thousands of people who have spent generations studying climate, space, and everything else, though. Because you are posting on this Internet forum, and they are not. So therefore, you must be correct.
First, right off the bat, scientists have been proven wrong about thousands of their 'facts' from their beginning.
Next, one could argue that coal and oil are both NATURAL Earth resources that were NOT created by man, but mother nature....like oceans and forests. I always hear using naturally produced products is always good for the people and the planet. Who can we blame when a volcano erupts ? Soooooo ?
You have to stop that thinking. If it's cold, it's weather. If it's hot, it's climate change.
I know lol
I love the news, They will do the weather.. and (example) will say todays high was 87* and the record high was 102* set in 1804 . Then go back to the news anchor that will be doing a piece on climate change.. The last time they did this.. in the middle of the climate change piece the other news reporter at the desk, asked the weather gal, what was the record again... The anchor kinda mumbled along after that.. I think even he saw the whole b/s of a climate change piece coming after a weather update and a record high date of 213 years ago.. Wish I was a fly on the wall when it went to comercials. I'm sure the reporter that asked for that date of the record high mid story, got a f-u off air..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 06-06-2017).]
I think the Watts Up With That or WUWT blog post that's just been presented and the literature that it references is a rabbit hole. I think it's meaningless. It's also from 2013, so kind of stale by now. If I were going to invest more time to examine it, I would look for more recent commentary about it.
I went to the reader's comments that are below it.
Here's one from "Dan."
quote
“Leading climatologist” Dr. David Legates is also a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation’s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” which states, in part: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”
I think if anyone were to take up the Internet or online trail that starts here--descend into the "rabbit hole" that this looks to be--they will find that this WUWT blog post is weighted in favor of a particular strain of Christian belief--Evangelicals, or at least, some Evangelicals--and not firmly grounded in science, or in any systematic and scientific examination of the totality of the scientific literature as it relates to the topic of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Here's another comment, from "arthur4563."
quote
Still no mention of the fallacy of assuming the opinions found in a paper written 20 years ago are the same the author holds today?
It's not clear to me where "arthur4563" was trying to go with that comment, but I believe that if an in-depth examination of this WUWT blog post from 2013 were to be pursued, it would reveal two unscientific fallacies that are behind it:
Giving equal weight to every individual report in the scientific literature, going all the way back to 1991, instead of favoring the most up to date reports.
Giving equal weight to what any one researcher or group of researchers reported at any time between 1991 and 2011, without regard to how their research reports changed over time.
Two unscientific fallacies that partly overlap with one another. Call it "one and a half."
When I look at this WUWT blog post from 2013, I think I'm looking at "fog" from the Anthropogenic Global Warming denialist fog machine.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-30-2020).]
