Don't you just love these insulting, petty people who support Global Warming ! They are quick to insult like the U.S. is doing absolutely nothing about emissions and such... Emission laws are 2 times more strict in allowing permits for the building of large as well as smaller plants that employ many. and Automakers have the strict implementation of squeezing all we can out of modified fossil fuels both natural gases and oil. The real trick is for these liberals to convince the much much larger countries than America who are polluting the air ways more severely than America.
Global Cooling is not made up It was on the Network news in the 1970s , Scientist
considered put ash on the ice up to trap heat , that was shot down.
It was on Time and Newsweek magazine covers too.
Nothing let them make their own excuses while nothing happened .
Ed Markey bases his global warming bills on Computer models because it might happen
that way . Its 0 to Infinity odds on accurate computer models though . They would have
better luck with crystal balls or throwing sticks on the ground .
Well, clearly the best way for you to do that would be to actually learn some math and physics (remember, those are what you avoided while taking astrology as your "science" elective instead), go into climate science and write better climate models that show how things should be done. THAT would be a great way to help climate scientists.
Alas, we're not holding out much hope for that. When you've been drinking beer for years and watching NASCAR with your buddies down at the Dew Drop Inn, it's too tough to go back and work on the nonlinear partial differential equations of geophysical fluid dynamics and radiative transfer.
Thanks for thinking of us, though.
Instead of blindly copying links to Economist magazine from echo-chamber anti-science blogs, I suggest you actually read what Economist has to say on the subject of climate science ( http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21... ):
"...Some scientists are arguing that man-made climate change is not quite so bad a threat as it appeared to be a few years ago...Does that mean the world no longer has to worry? No, for two reasons. The first is uncertainty. The science that points towards a sensitivity lower than models have previously predicted is still tentative...The second reason is more practical. If the world had based its climate policies on previous predictions of a high sensitivity, then there would be a case for relaxing those policies, now that the most hell-on-Earth-ish changes look less likely. But although climate rhetoric has been based on fears of high sensitivity, climate policy has not been. On carbon emissions and on adaptation to protect the vulnerable it has fallen far short of what would be needed even in a low-sensitivity world...There is no plausible scenario in which carbon emissions continue unchecked and the climate does not warm above today’s temperatures... Good policies―strategies for adapting to higher sea levels and changing weather patterns, investment in agricultural resilience, research into fossil-fuel-free ways of generating and storing energy―are wise precautions even in a world where sensitivity is low. So is putting a price on carbon and ensuring that, slowly but surely, it gets ratcheted up for decades to come. If the world has a bit more breathing space to deal with global warming, that will be good. But breathing space helps only if you actually do something with it."
The supposed "global cooling" consensus of the 1970s is a deception made-up by fossil fuel industry propagandists. The science is solid and consistent despite these anti-science deniers' deceptions. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
99.9% of the time models are referenced here is by you DA ******* deniers. The warmest's here don't bring them up because anyone with any sense knows they aren't accurate. They are basically used to examine trends and specific data happenings. I don't look at them or have any faith in them because we can see the real time temps and real time CO2 readings and see at a glance that the planet is warming and there are some peculiar things happening with the weather that are abbynormal
Oh the economist as a source I will look for a copy next time I need to wipe my a**
I seriously hope you don't plan to procreate
Well at the moment they're just grasping at straws aren't they and the more they grasp the sillier they become, we've got heat hiding in the deep oceans where it can't be seen and now they're suggesting that the ice in Antarctica is melting underneath the other ice, where again it can't be seen.
At this point I don't think they can save face, I think it's just time for them to come clean, declare agw a false god and then they can start figuring out their next scam and gravy train.
They aren't scientists. They are political scam artists. Why should we help them. They already have our money and taken away our freedoms. There are other things that should happen to them, and saving face is not one of them.
Their climate models are increasingly off the mark, and warming hasn't happened in 15 years. To his credit, Stephen Schneider was predicting Global Cooling in the 1970s, before he saw how the "wind was blowing" and latched onto the Warming funding. Should we give them free phones? Should we give their kids free college to replace the government funding they would have to turn down? How do we help them come back into the scientific realm and out of the political realm?
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
