Pure unadulterated hooey. Nothing more than a recitation of false claims.TVegas wrote:I'm going to law school next fall and may be working in environmental law after that, but likely in commercial litigation. Will my work and therefore income be affected as a result of the completely factual existence of climate change? Possibly, but most likely not. Do I personally stand to gain more from the projected consequences of climate change than I will lose? Absolutely not. If I work in environmental law, it will not be in air quality or alternative energy, but almost certainly wetland restoration/regulation or hazardous materials.mojo84 wrote: Once you graduate, will you be in a profession utilizing your degree and will that result in personal income or profit? Will that profit or income be increased by the existence or perceived existence of global warming?
No one with adequate knowledge of climate science could claim that we have 100% certainty in our understanding of climatology. As a result, we have to account for uncertainty, which is small enough that we can still be sure we are having an influence. As I stated, you can debate the exact amount of warming, but you can not debate that there has been significant warming (even the lowest estimates are still high enough to be significant).mojo84 wrote: If you do not like the idea of looking at the last 20 years, what period of time fits your argument? Haven't we gone through something like 7 ice ages? Didn't those involve, climate change, global warming, global cooling etc.?
Accounting for uncertainty means comparing global average temperature trends over time, not simply comparing the average temperature in a given year to another year that supports your argument (this is called cherry-picking data). The "20 years of cooling" claim is usually based on comparing 1995 and 2014 average winter temperatures in the US. That is in fact true, but not only is it too short of a time frame, it is also only winter temperatures and only in the US. Using the exact same data, extending the time frame to 1981 and 2010 shows "40 years of warming".
When conducting solid analysis (not cherry-picking convenient years), there has been about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warming since 1880, and about two-thirds of that was in the last forty years. If you look at the historical record, there has been a clear upward acceleration since the industrial revolution. This isn't a time frame that fits my argument, it is history starting today and going back for up to thousands of years.
Yes, there have been ice ages and warmer periods, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we humans have become a prominent factor that has accelerated the warming since we started burning coal as fuel.
What I have posted here is simply the facts. I am not debating the general reality, because there is no rational argument to be had. You can continue to debate specifics, but I will not be wasting anymore of my time. This is like debating religion and politics.
I'm too lazy to write my own version so I'll let Karl Denninger speak on the subject: http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp ... d=14667570
First: the tactics of the "globull warmers".....
....and the so-called "climate denier" label is intended to evoke The Holocaust, which is an outrageous and intentional appeal to a factually-known act of mass-murder that left a few million skeletons behind as evidence.
The problem with so-called "climate science" is that it's not science at all; it's hucksterism and fraud. Let's look at a few (and only a few!) of the problems that the so-called "climate change" people peddle.
1. It was called "global warming", but when the warming stopped and failed to verify against the claims of their computer models for 15 years running they changed their name. That's fraud.
2. Only something like 3% of the surface of the earth has a temperature probe covering a place in the immediate vicinity. That's a lack of data.
3. There has been zero control, intentionally, for the change in the surface of the earth immediately surrounding said temperature probes. Specifically, over time as development has continued people do things like put blacktop roads and parking lots near said probes, which raises the local temperature (due to the sun heating the material, not atmospheric composition.) This impact must be adjusted out, preferably by adding more probes in other, non-developed places, but it isn't -- intentionally.
4. The CO2 "balance" allegedly from human activity intentionally ignores sub-sea volcanic production of CO2. There are an enormous number of these, by the way, and yet there is no so-called greenhouse-gas model that attempts to place upper and lower boundaries on their emissions. It is entirely possible, by the way, that due to this (and the error bands for above-ground volcanic release) man-made CO2 emissions are immaterial -- whether CO2 is involved in climate change or not!
11. There have been multiple examples found of data being "adjusted" and all said adjustments have been one-way -- upward. This is statistically impossible; anyone with even a modicum of statistical training understands that statistically speaking adjustments to data should cluster around the mean with a few outlying points. When all of the adjustments are in one direction it is a virtual certainty that the intention of said adjustment is to deceive.
12. When said "adjustments" are removed from the data the so-called "precipitous warming" of the last half of the 20th century entirely disappears.
He makes a lot of other points I haven't bothered to quote here. But perhaps the most relevant fact is that no model of climate change predicts what has actually occurred. If structural engineers used models like this their buildings and bridges would fall down and they'd be sued for fraud and negligence. All the climate hucksters have are the repetition of false claims, doctored data, and name calling. They get away with it because it will take decades for the claims to be irrefutably falsified, so they can assert all kinds of nonsense until they're caught up by reality. It's just another version of the same environmental end of the world nonsense peddled in the 70s...except this time around instead of a fad it has become a religion and those who refuse the climate change baptism are attacked as heretics, blasphemers, and moral degenerates. When "science" sounds and looks like religion it's not science.13. 10 years ago the global scaremongers told us that global warming was going to cause more and nastier hurricanes that would decimate the United States coastline. Wilma, which hit Florida in October, was the last serious hurricane impact on the state; in point of fact the hurricane incidence has precipitously declined since 2005 in terms of impacts on the United States.
Oh, yeah, this is the short list. I could probably come up with 100 bullet points if I was willing to spend more than 20 minutes or so on the subject.
In short exactly who is the "denier"? When you look at the facts surrounding this alleged "warming" what you find is cooked data, intentional refusal to consider time frames beyond the immediate past in geologic terms, the slander of those who point out the deceptions, omissions and outright lies of those pressing the agenda along with rank hypocrisy (Obama and Gore flying around in jets spewing monstrous amounts of CO2 into the air while claiming it's a "serious problem".)
