Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
You can clearly see that the climate models are pseudo-science. The real Earth is true science. Remember back when Coke had the slogan, "It's the real thing."? Well, a greenie obviously doesn't drink coke because they are oblivious to THE REAL THING which true science is based on.
It proves the dogma, factually we are displacing the weather through pollution, and because cool-air gets forced into hot-locations, and hot-air into cool-locations, we are warming-up(it's to do with heat staying warm longer, so the cool places aren't as cool).
The problem with predictions, and weather(is just like any weather prediction), there's around 5,000 variables, that are dependent on another 500 factors each, that need to come together, now we have enormous formula's, that have been improved a lot the last 5-10 years, before that they were not that solid, but even then a 5-10% change in the factors, and everything can look really different, where it seemed fixed 2 days ago.
So predictability will remain tough, especially when you're predicting years, or decades into the future, there's just too many factors.
Looking back though(at the statistics, the research of what HAS happened), the dynamic of Global Warming is real, and it is causing problems, natural disasters, and imbalances, that wouldn't be happening if we weren't polluting the hell out of the Planet.
What are these failed warming predictions exactly? The global temperature has risen by 0.4 degrees C in the last 30 years. The average global temperature for 2014 is 1.05 degrees C hotter than the 20th century average, there is no denying that the world is getting hotter.
The shift in temperature has caused chaos with weather systems worldwide. The Philippines is getting by a 14th typhoon this year at the moment! The worst before this year was suffering six severe storms.
Climate research is not an exact science, but if you really think that global warming isn't real then you could be condemning your grandchildren to far less pleasant world that this.
Twenty years ago, tobacco companies did everything possible to ridicule the evidence that smoking causes cancer. Why? Because they were making big bucks and the fact that they were killing their customers was a problem for the future.
Today, it's the oil and gas companies that are trying to ridicule the science behind global warming. Why? Because they want to make big bucks NOW and hang the consequences for the future.
It's all about the money so don't be taken in. Oil companies are trying to fool you because they want to make mega-money, and the people in charge think they will never have to face the consequences. The funding given to climate research is trivial compared to the eye watering sums to be made selling oil and gas.
Or maybe you just don't care what type of world your grand-kids grow up in?
Global warming continues. Perhaps there hasn't been as much "doom" as was hyped- but the science is accurate. There may be more political hype than is justified- but it is proven that the average global temperature is increasing. The global temperature average has increased around 1 degree celsius in the past century.
That said, the effects of this global warming are hard to predict- and some politicians and news organizations like to portray them as all becoming reality and really overhype it. The science is justified, but the actual effects are exxagerated.
during the last ten years Ive taken a pragmatic approach to the environmental messages relating to climate change
whether its occurring or not may be largely irrelevant
lets sets aside for a minute rising oceans, extreme hot, cold, wet and dry
lets set aside lost agricultural land and mass extinctions
sustainability should be front and centre for us all
the planet only has so much of everything including oil, gas and perhaps more importantly usable farm land
so .. when the greenies talk about oil use being a problem - whether it is or isn't its running out within the next century which may be ok BUT I find myself thinking what specific process may we still need some for way after every vehicle is electric
perhaps we shouldn't use it all - keep some in the ground
for farming land
world populations are growing and we continue farming cattle and sheep - in many parts of the world they represent the least efficient use of that land - astonishes me that for every 1kg of beef on the table it takes 1000 litres of water to get it there (thats not a greenies figure but an industry figure)
get that - 1000 litres of water for every 1kg of beef .. unbelievable
anyway
this funding you speak of is largely about research - when has research ever been a been idea
the rest is about alternate energy sources and forestry - all worthwhile areas of spending
so ... hardly wasted whether it produces the results the scientists suggest or not
Parts of NYC highway is sopposed to be flooded now so Hansen moved the goalpost 50 to 100 years.
He is a Quack
false premise. what failed predictions?
Few if any of the thousands of global warming predictions have come true over the last 30 years. Does this mean that the "science" is flawed, or do failed predictions just further prove the "science" is real? Is there any other science that can fail as much as global warming predictions and still get funded?
