Nothing has warmed. Seas haven't risen. How do they know what to charge for something that isn't happening?
I think they should agree on a world wide 75 degree temperature with clear skies and a light breeze !
(since they seem to believe they can declare what the weather will be!)
So insane.... please show me the proof they can change the world climate.... yet alone impact global temperature.... pure insanity...
“Nothing has warmed, seas haven’t risen.”
Why, that’s not what the MSM would have you believe. Just yesterday, I was listening to the local radio, and a news filler item was injected about global warming. The item claimed that “ground zero” for climate refugees was a small fishing village on an island in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay. It was projected that in 50 years, rising waters would force them to abandon their island homes and move to the mainland.
The news station isn’t to blame here; they just parrot whatever is injected into the AP/UPI or whomever news flow across the announcer’s desk to fill the time between commercials.
So we can now can simply use legislation like a thermostat to control the Earth’s temperature? Wow!
“Peter Ogden, a former State Department climate aide,”
Is this the same GS rating as the Unicorn Inspections and Certification aid?
This scheme to expedite the destruction of America by transferring our current and future tax dollars to foreign dictators should be fought on that basis.
We need only explain that the reason they weren’t the least bit embarrassed by having to change the name of the hoax from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”, is because it IS just a fraudulent mechanism, and has no expectation of actually impacting the climate.
"Wait a minute" you say "where do these scaling factors come from?" Glad you asked. Say a temperature station has been located in Mr. Rodgers neighborhood since the mid 1800s. Now back then it was mostly woodland. Mr. Rodgers dutifully recorded the temperature from his rather crude mercury thermometer nearly every day. The days he forgot, he'd fill in the next day or two 'cause he remembered it had seemed a little warmer or cooler than today. Eventually Barney moved in next door, cut down the woods and started farming. Temperatures seemed to get a little higher. Then a town sprung up just down the road. Then some more people moved in and the magic kingdom expanded... Temperatures seemed to go up, but now Mr. Rodgers had a new fancier thermometer but he was getting a little old and more forgetful about recording the temps...
Fast forward to today. "Researchers" need to scale and adjust Mr. Rodgers readings. They know that farm land is warmer than woodland due to the way trees absorb light & heat. They know rural suburbs are warmer than farm land due to pavement, houses, etc. Towns are warmer than suburbs, cities warmer still. These are all local effects due to "land use." So when comparing readings from that site they need to adjust the data. The temps will be warmer right there because the thermometer is now on a farm rather than in the woods. But that's only the temperature right there. The average temp throughout the county/area really hasn't changed, just that one little patch of it.
How much? How do researchers account for "land use" changing the local temp? Well, they look at historical data/temps and how land use changed, and come up with scaling factors. However, over this same stretch of data they are looking at changes in temperature recording technology (better, more accurate and more precise thermometers). This is also the same data/time they believe man-caused warming is occurring *in general* ... So yes, they are using the same data to "discover" trends as they are to "discover" how much of an adjustment factor is needed. It's kind of like saying "I have this pile of BS here, I'm going to use it to calibrate my scales. Then I'm going to use my scales to weigh this pile of BS..."
Oh, and if that doesn't convince you this is all BS... For some of their "research" they let temperature readings from a single station represent a large area. How large? Oh, up to 900+ miles in radius. Yep. To them, a temperature reading in New Orleans is representative of the temp there, and in Minneapolis. Right.
The science no longer supports the certainty of a 2.0 degree increase - even the last IPCC report said the low end of their guess is below 2.0 and people will eventually find out. So they have to say 1.5 is the danger point.
If the science starts saying 1.0 or 0.5 or -1.0 the danger point will be adjusted accordingly to demand that we “do something” to save the planet (”something” involves taking our money and/or giving governments more power).
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here and here