Skip to comments.Cold shoulder for climate change (Is it hogwash or fraud?)
Posted on 05/28/2011 6:51:09 AM PDT by Libloather
Cold shoulder for climate change
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 5/24/11 4:28 AM EDT
Climate scientists are in a tough spot.
They have never been more certain about what they know. Powerful new satellites can hone in on mountainous regions to measure ice melt. Stronger computers model changes in disruptive weather patterns. Scientists are even more comfortable attributing climate change to visible effects around the globe, from retreating Himalayan glaciers to southwestern U.S. droughts and acidifying oceans.
For instance, National Research Council members got a collective shrug earlier this month when they went to Capitol Hill to share their work a congressionally mandated, 18-month review of the nuts and bolts of global warming science and ideas for what U.S. policymakers could do about it.
Only a small group of House and Senate aides showed up for private briefings on the study. And while a couple of staffers asked parochial questions about how climate change affects their districts and states, the authors also got the second degree on whether there is even a problem.
They said, There are those who believe its a bit of hogwash. And not only hogwash, but a fraud, said Albert Carnesale, chancellor emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles and chairman of the NRC panel.
Scientists arent a lobbying force, said Andrew Revkin, author of The New York Timess Dot Earth blog. Theyre trying to make science matter in an arena where the only way it matters is to use it to support an existing agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Clear case of fraud. Every time someone mentions the natural heating and cooling cycles of the earth, the data is deemed irrelevant. This is Political Science. The science of making subjects of free people.
Me too; since scientists have proved it’s hogwash.
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
Those five articles each show that Greenhouse Theory has no basis in reality due to a direct conflict with the known laws of physics. No wonder the smoking gun "hotspot" can't be found.
That article kills any thought of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign of rising sea levels how could the planet be warming? The rise in sea level in the last 100 years is almost exactly the same as the average over the last 40,000 years caused by the inter-glacial period we are in.
Fraud, hogwash, and whatever other name one can think of when someone is in it for the money.
The really sad part is the shysters have all these little mushbrains believing if they follow them they will save the world.
I’m so glad my daughter was much smarter than this and though raised in the south, lived in NYC for 5 years, never wavered.
Conservative to the bone.
The age of the NGOs has changed that.
Climate change is normal and happens daily. It is part of the world, sun and solar system’s cycle of climate.
Is any of this man made or man caused? HELL NO!
Those who read the Bible know that God often uses weather, which He alone controls, to punish the wickedness of mankind. Beginning with the Great Flood in the time of Noah, the three year drought when no rain fell in the prophet Elijah’s time, God sent weather related disasters to remind evildoers that they were treading on dangerous ground and repentance is in order.
So yes, judging by the moral condition of mankind around the globe, and certainly in our own country, one might say that “climate change” is caused by man...but not by his use of fossil fuels. Rather it might be the wickedness currently in vogue, such evil as killing over fifty million of God’s children in abortion, in discarding the Ten Commandments, in kicking Him out of our national life while inviting all manner of perversion in.
The next time some Liberal brings up “anthropological climate change,” run this past him. No doubt, you will get an interesting response.
The first paragraph is completely one sided. I didn’t read the rest of the article.
Venus’s atmosphere is 96% Co2....hotter than hell.
Mar's atmosphere is 95% Co2....colder than hell.
What is the deciding factor?
How about their relative distance from the sun.
Venus is the second planet and Mars is the fourth, hmmmmmmm, and Earth is the third.
One is too hot and one is too cold and one is just right.
Fluctuations of temperature, on Earth, arise from the elliptical orbit and the variation in the tilt of the Earth's axis and their relationship to the sun at any given time.
Now, I didn't write this for anyone on FreeRepublic, I'm only hoping a warmist AGW scientist happens to be perusing this thread and needs a reminder concerning the basics.
Climate science has suffered another blow to its credibility after it was revealed that a claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that Himalayan glaciers will probably disappear altogether in the next 25 years was wrong.
Why do they even bother calling themselves journalists.
I’d say “both”.
I’ll go with “All That and More”.
How dare you introduce logic & common-sense into a mushy-feely political discussion!
And no real scientist would claim that global warming is a “fact” and has been proven conclusively. Nothing in science is ever conclusive — theories, and that is exactly what they are — THEORIES, are based on limited and error prone data and models that are approximations of the “system.” In the end, a scientist can only predict the probability of something happening.
Interesting: I remember watching a show on computer modeling of complex systems. What was most striking about the show was the conclusion that an immeasurable error in the model itself, the initial conditions, or the data, had a huge impact on the end result a short period into the simulation.
In other words, a very, very small error WILL produce widely varying, black versus white, results. Predicting future global climate using this process is inherently flawed.
So the question is — how flawed is it? Apparently, very flawed based on more recent objective review and events — hide the decline, measuring temperatures in city centers, etc. And what about the models themselves?
Since we are absolutley without a doubt cooling... and it is all related to the Sun... but since we are cooling off... this is an exposed scam... perhaps the largest ever attempted on the world stage... and the players should be tried and if found guilty... then executed.
What are all these scientists going to do to make a living now? They don’t create anything. Their only hope is government funding.
The prior 3 sunspot cycles were of an asymetric nature with bouble peaks on the high side.
The present 11 year cycle is asymetric on the low cycle with a very elongated low.
We may have arrive at the peak of this present cycle which would make it very short.
Combine my previous post with solar cycles.....yet again another basic component to our weather for scientist peruser’s to ponder the basics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.