Posted on 04/01/2013 4:33:46 PM PDT by neverdem
Pull your graph to the left to include the 1940s to document ANOTHER inconvenient statistical inference correlation.
Oh, NOES! Statistics just might, could be JUNK SCIENCE!
How could we possibly be forced to abandon the doom and gloom speculations of junk science?
The Internet would never have been invented!
The United Nations would be headquartered in Missouri ! Oh, NOES !
This I already agree with. AGW is no longer a scientific theory, its just false political dogma.
Here, here. I used to subscribe, because it used to be the most cogent reporting on the planet.
The left got a hold of it and then anything and everything got past the editors.
Can’t read it anymore. Too small a form factor to serve as a decent fish wrap either.
See Investors Business Daily
Much better
Indeed. Good pub.
Holding back=Holy Spirit.
I do believe GOD is the part of alleqations, big and small. So it's up to Him, not the "earth people," to decide when the world will burn up.
I lean heavily to Intelligent design and the anthropic principle and a symbiotic relationship with man and nature. I'm sure this is intolerant flat earth mythical thinking and has some context in the DSM-IV R which shows I'm just a nutcase than needs a lot of drugs.
Will some one please show me( I really would like to know.see this) how much "man made climate" is forcing change as compared to environmental things like earthquakes, volcanoes,floods and droughts and things?
-----------------------------------------
I wonder how can we logically believe the EPA can force taxation and thousands of rules and regulations for 330 million( counting the illegals) and this will somehow alleviate all the alleged damage we've done to "gaia," or "mother earth" and the tree-hugger dissociation-ists, worshipers of the world.
The only things that haven’t failed are the Sun and the ability of the human race to produce morons.
Not one bleeping word in that whole eruption of geniousity about forestation/re-forestation and TREES, which eat CO2. My own two thousand pine trees just love CO2 and eat it by the bagfull. If one of these moonbats figures out a way to actually cut back on available CO2 I swear I will start burning old tires to feed my trees. There is plenty of evidence that there is more forest land is the USA now than there was a century ago. Until these blabbering axe grinders put together a model that actually deals with the real world they will remain political hacks who are in it for their next grant and not to be allowed contact with sane people.
You are so late to the party. Dihydrogen Monoxide has been found to be the leading cause of drowning and makes up a very large percentage of acid rain. It has also been found be a very distructive element in flooding, which creates landslides. This chemical is responsible for killing thousands of people each year. I am surprised that the RATS have not stood in line to protect us from this dangerous chemical by outright banning its existance. Actually, as sad as it is, a high school student did a study about how gullable people are. He created a petition that they could sign after he gave his speal about this dangerous chemical. After people signed the petition, he told them that they just signed a petition to outlaw water.
As a science novice, but an observer of our planet, I believe that we travel around our sun at great speed, taking all of our atoms and molecules with us. They don’t come from outer space and don’t drift into outer space. So -— carbon cycles! Now a tree; then a house or a chopstick or a wood fire or a newspaper; then CO2; then rinse and repeat. More trees!
By far the most balanced study of climate change that I've read is Climate of Extremes by Michaels (former professor of meteorology at U. Virginia, now at the Cato Institute) and Balling.
As climatologists (rather than pundits), Michaels and Balling do not deny the existence of warming trends, nor that human CO2 output has played a role. What they do deny is that there is any scientific basis for the apocalyptic scenarios of extreme temperature spikes, sea level rises flooding coastal cities, chronic hurricanes, and all of the other disasters that we hear about in the media. They also conclude that the economic costs of dealing with the realistic effects of anthropogenic climate change (local desertification, small sea level rises) are far less than the economic costs of trying to minimize C02 emissions.
Michaels and Balling are climatologists, and their line of argument strikes the most sensible balance between those who claim that the end is nigh thanks to C02 emissions, and those who deny the possibility of billions of humans and their industry having some kind of impact on atmospheric chemistry.
"And yet, as James Hansen, the (former) head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, 'the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.'”
"If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch."
Close enough for government work! Most agree that hasn't warmed since the late nineties.
We can make changes on a local level for a time but the moment we slack off nature is going to move back in and take over.
Sometimes we really need to get over ourselves.
Thanks for finding and posting this!
DE pinglist
All the models apparently measure atmospheric change and fail to measure the heat input.
There is no mention of variable BTU input, it is apparently held constant. There is no study correlating minor input variations with temperature change.
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.