Few issues demonstrate the corrupting influence of politics as well as the debate over climate science. This should be a straightforward matter of engaging the scientific method to determine what we do know and what remains to be discovered. It is the science that should be complicated, not the goal of the project.
Instead, we have competing groups with conflicting agendas that depend on specific outcomes of scientific inquiry being accepted as truth for those agendas to move forward. While this is not an entirely new phenomenon, we can be thankful that it has not permeated all scientific inquiry to this degree lest we still be bogged down in a debate over whether the Earth or our sun is at the center of the solar system.
As we are painfully aware, the political left supports the belief that the climate is changing as a result of human activity, that this change is detrimental, and that immediate action on the part of all nations is essential to prevent a cataclysmic event in this century.
But what does the science really say? More on page two.
Absolutely by Scamitoligists trying to keep from having to work at McDonalds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fREW8–8M98
Let me just throw this tag up here…..snowflakes…. hope they get it
Lol The people that run this page or straight up brain-dead Lol let me guess you guys are gonna say 1+1 =4
It’s what atheist, socialist, snowflakes do.
Glaciers will keep melting until they are gone, unless we have another ice age, nothing we can do.
Ummm… this study is a fraud…http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/
Ultimately, the central argument of this study and its representation by Breitbart and others is one based on a willful misreading of data propelled by a study whose academic rigor has been misrepresented. As such, we rank the claim that climate scientists have created global warming entirely through corrections to raw data as false. While these corrections to raw historical data have shifted over time, the cumulative effect of all corrections applied to the raw data has been to reduce apparent global warming over the industrialized period, not the other way around.
Global warming Alarmist scientists have failed to develop a valid model that accurately reflects the past 2000 years of warming and cooling. The fraudster Michael Mann, of the infamous “hockey stick” – conveniently ‘flattened out’ the curve where the Medieval Warm Period existed…(when Greenland was settled as an agricultural community…900 – 1100 AD)….and he eliminate the very cold time of the ‘mini-Ice Age (1500 – 1700’s – especially the 1600’s – when we had the Maunder Minimum.) Once you eliminate those big cycles and have a flat line (the ‘stick of the hockey stick)…you then lie that the current temperature rise is unprecedented. (When it ISN’T).
Show me the model that explains the Roman Warm period, followed by the “dark ages” – when the globe was much cooler…then the Medieval Warm Period…then the mini-Ice Age. Once the climate computer model shows that…THEN explain how adding CO2 will cause temperature changes more radical that the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm period did. Until then – the models are typical GIGO….Garbage In, Garbage Out.
BTW – as to the fraudulent Michael Mann….did you hear about how he refused to follow a court order to produce his data and ‘methods.’ Mann stupidly filed suit against Dr. Ball (in Canada) for ‘libel’…and the court was willing to allow the case to be dropped so long as Mann released his data and methodology. (BTW – an HONEST scientist RELEASES methods and data so that it can be peer reviewed, replicated, etc…..while a crooked person claiming to be a scientist will HIDE his data and methods…afraid of being found out.) Since Mann is defaulting …..the Canadian court can award Dr. Ball all legal fees and can declare Mann to be a fraud and his ‘hockey stick’ is also fraudulent.
Disappointing you didn’t figure this out at least a decade ago. But I’m glad you finally figured this out.
Cool lol yep good OK wow