free hit counter
It was the "flat earthers" who were the "consensus" and were wrong, Kerry. - Redneck Clubhouse - Of, By and For Rednecks!

Energy and the Environment Are they two competing things, or both the same thing? Oil, Drilling & Alternative Energies and environmental policies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 20th, 2014, 12:28 PM
Midnight_Marauder's Avatar
Midnight_Marauder Midnight_Marauder is offline
Registered Beer User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where the Buffalo Roam
Posts: 8,232
Likes Given: 7,699
Liked 2,907 in 2,357 Posts
Midnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight_Marauder has a brilliant future
Default It was the "flat earthers" who were the "consensus" and were wrong, Kerry.

Kerrys most recent wild claims got the attention of Professors of Atmospheric Science Richard McNider and John Christy. Dr. Christy served at one time on the IPCC, the UN body that pushes anthropogenic climate change as the bogeyman of our time, and shared in its Nobel Prize along with Al Gore. Christy and McNider, however, teach a history lesson to Kerry before addressing his shrieking hysteria on global warming. It was the Flat Earthers who clung to “consensus,” and the skeptics who turned out to be right:

Richard McNider and John Christy: Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change - WSJ.com

Quote:
In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the "Flat Earth Society" for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, "We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts."

But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today's scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?



Most of us who are skeptical about the dangers of climate change actually embrace many of the facts that people like Bill Nye, the ubiquitous TV "science guy," say we ignore. The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.

What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.

For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was "one-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results." As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years.

When the failure of its predictions become clear, the modeling industry always comes back with new models that soften their previous warming forecasts, claiming, for instance, that an unexpected increase in the human use of aerosols had skewed the results. After these changes, the models tended to agree better with the actual numbers that came in—but the forecasts for future temperatures have continued to be too warm.
More at link.
__________________
Could it be that I could be the cowboy in that mystery who died so long ago in that El Paso sand?
Post liked by
  #2  
Old February 20th, 2014, 02:12 PM
moomin's Avatar
moomin moomin is offline
€COM#1
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Freezer
Posts: 7,080
Likes Given: 766
Liked 1,830 in 1,624 Posts
moomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant future
Default

Failed politico's turned Gaia prophets not being entirely honest with us about science? Whodthunkit...
__________________
Dance like no one is watching. Sing like no one is listening. Love like you've never been hurt and live like it's heaven on Earth.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright ©2000 - 2018 usmessageboards.com all rights reserved