Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[trysail]

Irrational fears arising from science that has been hijacked, exploited and promulgated by activists with an agenda result in amazingly dumb government policy decisions.

Hansen said with a straight face that he believed that sea level rise would be 5 meters by 2100 and predicted that his offices in New York would be underwater by now (as indeed they’d have to be if the world were on the way to a 5 meter rise by 2100).

Climate doomcasting, fear-mongering and Thermageddon™ is simply the most recent version of the age-old crystal ball, entrail-reading profession.

How many failed predictions should they be allowed before you begin to question their competence?




​

 

[toubab]

Irrational fears arising from science that has been hijacked, exploited and promulgated by activists with an agenda result in amazingly dumb government policy decisions.

Hansen said with a straight face that he believed that sea level rise would be 5 meters by 2100 and predicted that his offices in New York would be underwater by now (as indeed they’d have to be if the world were on the way to a 5 meter rise by 2100).

Climate doomcasting, fear-mongering and Thermageddon™ is simply the most recent version of the age-old crystal ball, entrail-reading profession.

How many failed predictions should they be allowed before you begin to question their competence?






​

Speaking of dumb government policy decisions:

"An Ironic Drought In California"

http://townhall.com/columnists/vict...tm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

"The present four-year California drought is not novel -- even if President Barack Obama and California Gov. Jerry Brown have blamed it on man-made climate change.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, California droughts are both age-old and common. Predictable California dry spells -- like those of 1929-34, 1976-77 and 1987-92 -- more likely result from poorly understood but temporary changes in atmospheric pressures and ocean temperatures.

What is new is that the state has never had 40 million residents during a drought -- well over 10 million more than during the last dry spell in the early 1990s. Much of the growth is due to massive and recent immigration.

A record one in four current Californians was not born in the United States, according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. Whatever one's view on immigration, it is ironic to encourage millions of newcomers to settle in the state without first making commensurately liberal investments for them in water supplies and infrastructure.

Sharp rises in population still would not have mattered much had state authorities just followed their forbearers' advice to continually increase water storage."

 

[trysail]

Who would have guessed it? Green studies indoctrinate not educate

by "Bishop Hill" (Andrew W. Montford)


I would have loved to be there when Brown University environmental studies student Jaqueline Ho suddenly realised that the course she had (presumably) forked out oodles of cash for was not actually an education at all. It turned out to be just a very expensive brainwashing exercise. Can you imagine the look on her face?

At Brown, ideas first planted by [Bill] McKibben were reinforced in courses where she read classics by Aldo Leopold and Garrett Hardin, along with recent books by Van Jones and Elizabeth Kolbert.

With these authors anchoring her understanding, it was easy for Ho to believe about climate change “that fossil fuel corporations were to blame, that we had a suite of low-carbon technologies we could deploy immediately, and that grassroots solutions held promise,” she recalls.

Yet only after taking an upper-level political science course on renewable energy and completing a summer fellowship with the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental think tank, was Ho introduced to alternative ways of thinking about climate change as a social problem and the possible solutions.
​

There are other ways of thinking about a problem! Who would have thought it?! Really though, you have to feel sorry for children who are indoctrinated throughout their school and university careers and only once they get into the wide world do they start to realise what has been done to them. Ms Ho's response to this horrible realisation has been admirable:

Motivated by her experience, in [a] recent study, Ho and Eric Kennedy (a doctoral student at Arizona State University) analyzed 22 syllabi from introductory environmental studies courses taught at top-ranked North American research universities and liberal arts colleges. They recorded course descriptions, objectives, activities, and readings according to specific themes, topics, and perspectives.

Of the 22 syllabi assessed, less than half explicitly mentioned the importance of critical thinking or exposing students to competing perspectives. Only 10 made any reference to the fact that even among those advocating for action to address a problem like climate change, there are competing narratives about the major societal challenges, the possible technological solutions, and the political strategies needed.

Instead, in most cases, diverging views on climate change were defined relatively simplistically in terms of the clash between mainstream scientists and the false claims of climate “deniers.”​

Yes indeed. You wonder whether the students could sue the universities for fraud.


http://bishophill.squarespace.com/b...ed-it-green-studies-indoctrinate-not-edu.html

​

 

[JohnnySavage]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama Administration’s hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation’s power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new independent study concludes.

God forbid!!! Businesses will go bankrupt!!!

 

[trysail]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama Administration’s hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation’s power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new independent study concludes.

God forbid!!! Businesses will go bankrupt!!!

SWAG.

(You do know what that acronym stands for, don't you?)


​

 

[JohnnySavage]

SWAG.

(You do know what that acronym stands for, don't you?)


​

I have no time for such taradiddle. You are nearing the end and don't seem to care about those at the beginning.

 

[trysail]

I have no time for such taradiddle. You are nearing the end and don't seem to care about those at the beginning.

Science that is politicized and corrupt is not only ugly; it's flat-out dangerous.


Innumeracy along with scientific and economic illiteracy has never been so widely displayed.


​

 

[JohnnySavage]

Science that is politicized and corrupt is not only ugly; it's flat-out dangerous.


Innumeracy along with scientific and economic illiteracy has never been so widely displayed.


​

Let's test your economic literacy:

A factory is located upwind from 50,000 people.

Which is best, from an economic perspective: 50,000 lawsuits to prevent the factory from pumping toxic chemicals into the air; or, one regulation preventing them from doing it?

I'll wait while you crunch the numbers.

 

[JohnnySavage]

How about another economic question?

Do we Americans spend more on health care because of industrial pollution then we would spend on eliminating the pollution in the first place?

 

[trysail]

There's a world of difference between pollution and CO2.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.


​

 

[JohnnySavage]

There's a world of difference between pollution and CO2.

CO2 isn't a pollutant.


​

I wasn't talking about CO2, you were.

In any event, removal of other toxins, and other GHGs, also removes CO2.

See - It's a win-win!

 

[trysail]

Yesterday between 39.07°N 76.42°W and 39.42°N 76.59°W (a straight line distance of 26 statute miles) there was an EIGHT DEGREE (8°) Fahrenheit (4.4°C) temperature difference.


The whole "climate change" brouhaha is entirely based on a putative (and very dubious) 0.8°C temperature increase over a 165 year period (with a measurement error of 1°).


I don't believe a word out of the folk who claim an ability to measure global temperatures


Ignoring the myriad unanswered scientific questions (not least of which are those of climate sensitivity and attribution), anybody who makes the claim that "the science is settled" is either a fool or is somebody who's trying to slip a hand into your wallet.


​

 

[phrodeau]

Ocean acidification is manmade, too.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Here's the thing, Trysail:

What if you're right and there is nothing to worry about... The current generation ends up spending a bit more today, but in return they get cleaner air.

What if you're wrong and GW is a big deal... Your children and grandchildren will have to pay huge amounts of money for food, fuel, shelter, infrastructure, etc.

Considering yours is the generation that stole the economic heritage of your children and grandchildren, it doesn't surprise me that you are opposed to spending one thin dime today, on the off-chance your progeny will have to spend millions in their future.

It's a common attitude among your peer group, "I got mine, to hell with everyone else." The fact of the matter is; you won't be here to see the impact that your attitude today will have on future generations, and what's more, you don't care.

 

[trysail]

Here's the thing, Trysail:

What if you're right and there is nothing to worry about... The current generation ends up spending a bit more today, but in return they get cleaner air.

What if you're wrong and GW is a big deal... Your children and grandchildren will have to pay huge amounts of money for food, fuel, shelter, infrastructure, etc.

Considering yours is the generation that stole the economic heritage of your children and grandchildren, it doesn't surprise me that you are opposed to spending one thin dime today, on the off-chance your progeny will have to spend millions in their future.

It's a common attitude among your peer group, "I got mine, to hell with everyone else." The fact of the matter is; you won't be here to see the impact that your attitude today will have on future generations, and what's more, you don't care.

Is it always that easy to scare you into undertaking ill-advised action? Does Wall Street scare you into selling high quality companies? Does Wall Street use greed to manipulate you into buying trash?


By the way, we've now had more than eighteen (18+) years of no significant warming.


As in zero, nil, nada, zip, zilch, none, bupkis.


The cost is astronomical and it would be borne by the folk least able to afford it.


This is an immature science. Thus far, there has been precious little evidence to support what is, at this point, nothing more than conjecture.


​

 

[toubab]

It's possible increased atmospheric CO2 levels are benefiting us much more than is currently recognized. Perhaps by saving us from the consequences of global cooling, for example. And by greening the planet, for another, which is indisputable.

 

[phrodeau]

First you said we've had 165 years of no significant warming, then you said 18 years of no significant warming.

I think you don't have a clear idea of what "significant" means.

 

[sethp]

The real questions are..which scientists and scientific organizations do we trust?

Not being a scientist myself, my first stop is NASA and scientific departments of universities and then other organizations and associations. Most of them are saying that we are in a cycle of man made global warming. In fact NASA lists hundreds of international groups.

So is NASA lying to me?

Serious questions...when it comes to tits and ass..I pick you guys over NASA...but science...? Sorry fucktards! Lol I'm going with NASA.

 

[phrodeau]

Of course NASA is lying to you. It's a gummint whore.

And so are all those other foreign scientists making the same claims. It's obvious that they're all on the Obama side.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Is it always that easy to scare you into undertaking ill-advised action? Does Wall Street scare you into selling high quality companies? Does Wall Street use greed to manipulate you into buying trash?


By the way, we've now had more than eighteen (18+) years of no significant warming.


As is zero, nil, nada, zip, zilch, none, bupkis.


The cost is astronomical and it would be borne by the folk least able to afford it.


This is an immature science. Thus far, there has been precious little evidence to support what is, at this point, nothing more than conjecture.


​

2014 was 18 years ago?

 

[Peregrinator]

 

[trysail]

​

 

[Peregrinator]

So, historical climate modeling is accurate?

Or did whoever made that graph discover a cache of old temperature readings that were meticulously recorded and corroborated with other sources?

You can't be saying the *gasp!* models are accurate, can you?

 

[educator4U]

.....

 

[Disgustipated]

Is it always that easy to scare you into undertaking ill-advised action? Does Wall Street scare you into selling high quality companies? Does Wall Street use greed to manipulate you into buying trash?


By the way, we've now had more than eighteen (18+) years of no significant warming.


As in zero, nil, nada, zip, zilch, none, bupkis.


The cost is astronomical and it would be borne by the folk least able to afford it.


This is an immature science. Thus far, there has been precious little evidence to support what is, at this point, nothing more than conjecture.


​

​

Make up your damn illiterate mind.