All right, the average doesn't matter--the point is that humans lived like a pack of wild dogs 15,000 years ago (plus obsidian tools and lots of leather). We've prospered in the years since despite 100+ meters of rising sea level.

The 20th century sea level rise was about 15-20 cm. That's faster than recent parts of this interglacial period and slower than other parts. I don't see the crisis.

Are the models projecting bigger sea level rises based on melting glaciers? They've retracted a lot of peer reviewed projections on glacier melt lately.

The model projections have been so consistently wrong on temp, sea ice, etc.--why should we believe the sea level projections?

It's the Pentagon's job to see everything as a threat to US interests--let them fight wars and take the rest of their stuff with a grain of salt.

WW

Ugh, just as our temperatures FINALLY got above average, we've gone back the other direction and there's yet another Nor'easter getting ready to dump heavy snow in the northeast.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know know ... this has nothing to do with Global Warming. W H A T E V E R ! ! !

Cargo Cult Science
 

Cargo cult science is a term used by physicist Richard Feynman during his commencement address at the California Institute of Technology, United States, in 1974 to describe work that has the semblance of being scientific, but is missing "a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty".


[edit] The speech
The speech is reproduced in the book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and on many web sites. He based the phrase on a concept in anthropology, the cargo cult, which describes how some pre-scientific cultures interpreted technologically advanced visitors as religious or supernatural figures who brought boons of "cargo." Just as cargo cultists create mock airports that fail to produce airplanes, cargo cult scientists conduct flawed research that fails to produce useful results. Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must first of all avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment.

He recommended that researchers adopt an unusually high level of honesty which is rarely encountered in everyday life, and gives examples from advertising, politics, and behavioral psychology to illustrate the everyday dishonesty which should be unacceptable in science. Feynman cautions that "We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science."

An example of cargo cult science is an experiment that uses another researcher's results in lieu of an experimental control. Since the other researcher's conditions might differ from those of the present experiment in unknown ways, differences in the outcome might have no relation to the independent variable under consideration. Other examples, given by Feynman, are from educational research, psychology (particularly parapsychology), and physics. He also mentions other kinds of dishonesty, for example, falsely promoting one's research to secure funding.
wiki

The origins of Cargo Cult:

Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whys are many, but it has become obvious that we have been the victim of fraud based on numerous motives. Some of those motives are clear and some not so clear, but Science has little to do with what has happened or the industries that sprang up around the Cult.

It sometimes seems hard to believe that many millions of humans thought the Axis powers were a correct way of thinking or that Communism was the way of the future. Many did so with "Scientific" support. We are far from the advanced creatures we sometimes imagine ourselves to be...

Metaphysical Truth
 

But...but...our cause is so righteous that anything said in its defense is Truth, in the ultimate sense of the word.

Yes, of course, who could possibly argue against saving our Mother Earth and all of her children?

Q: Who would most benefit from an artificial increase in the cost of energy and a complex set of rules to govern "proper" behavior?
A: Certain financial concerns who have carefully positioned themselves for just such an event and certain political concerns who desire more revenue and control.


Q: Who would benefit from lower energy costs?
A: Just about everyone else in the world.

R-B Illuminati questions
 

How can we deny these "concerns" the booty which they have worked so hard to obtain?

Wouldn't that just make them lazy, and give them time and resources with which to stir up trouble?

It Just Needs a Rewrite and Good PR
 

•"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3





•"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9

Here is a study on Spain and "Green Jobs".

Green Jobs: Study Reveals Real-World Numbers

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090...-renewable.pdf

Bottomline every Spanish green job comes with a cost of $800,000.00 associated with it. Additionally the subsidies killed 2.5 regular old polluting jobs by taking that money out of the economy.

Re: Climategate
 

We’re Gonna Be Sorry

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: July 24, 2010

When I first heard on Thursday that Senate Democrats were abandoning the effort to pass an energy/climate bill that would begin to cap greenhouse gases that cause global warming and promote renewable energy that could diminish our addiction to oil, I remembered something that Joe Romm, the climateprogress.org blogger, once said:

The best thing about improvements in health care is that all the climate-change deniers are now going to live long enough to see how wrong they were.

Alas, so are the rest of us. I could blame Republicans for the fact that not one G.O.P. senator indicated a willingness to vote for a bill that would put the slightest price on carbon. I could blame the Democratic senators who were also waffling. I could blame President Obama for his disappearing act on energy and spending more time reading the polls than changing the polls. I could blame the Chamber of Commerce and the fossil-fuel lobby for spending bags of money to subvert this bill. But the truth is, the public, confused and stressed by the last two years, never got mobilized to press for this legislation. We will regret it.

We’ve basically decided to keep pumping greenhouse gases into Mother Nature’s operating system and take our chances that the results will be benign — even though a vast majority of scientists warn that this will not be so. Fasten your seat belts. As the environmentalist Rob Watson likes to say: “Mother Nature is just chemistry, biology and physics. That’s all she is.” You cannot sweet-talk her. You cannot spin her. You cannot tell her that the oil companies say climate change is a hoax. No, Mother Nature is going to do whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate, and “Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats 1.000,” says Watson. Do not mess with Mother Nature. But that is just what we’re doing.

Since I don’t have anything else to say, I will just fill out this column with a few news stories and e-mails that came across my desk in the past few days:

• Just as the U.S. Senate was abandoning plans for a U.S. cap-and-trade system, this article ran in The China Daily: “BEIJING — The country is set to begin domestic carbon trading programs during its 12th Five-Year Plan period (2011-2015) to help it meet its 2020 carbon intensity target. The decision was made at a closed-door meeting chaired by Xie Zhenhua, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission ... Putting a price on carbon is a crucial step for the country to employ the market to reduce its carbon emissions and genuinely shift to a low-carbon economy, industry analysts said.”

• As we East Coasters know, it’s been extremely hot here this summer, with records broken. But, hey, you could be living in Russia, where ABC News recently reported that a “heat wave, which has lasted for weeks, has Russia suffering its worst drought in 130 years. In some parts of the country, temperatures have reached 105 degrees.” Moscow’s high the other day was 93 degrees. The average temperature in July for the city is 76 degrees. The BBC reported that to keep cool “at lakes and rivers around Moscow, groups of revelers can be seen knocking back vodka and then plunging into the water. The result is predictable — 233 people have drowned in the last week alone.”

• A day before the climate bill went down, Lew Hay, the C.E.O. of NextEra Energy, which owns Florida Power & Light, one of the nation’s biggest utilities, e-mailed to say that if the Senate would set a price on carbon and requirements for renewal energy, utilities like his would have the price certainty they need to make the big next-generation investments, including nuclear. “If we invest an additional $3 billion a year or so on clean energy, that’s roughly 50,000 jobs over the next five years,” said Hay. (Say goodbye to that.)

• Making our country more energy efficient is not some green feel-good thing. Retired Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson, who was Gen. David Petraeus’s senior logistician in Iraq, e-mailed to say that “over 1,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan hauling fuel to air-condition tents and buildings. If our military would simply insulate their structures, it would save billions of dollars and, more importantly, save lives of truck drivers and escorts. ... And will take lots of big fuel trucks (a k a Taliban Targets) off the road, expediting the end of the conflict.”

• The last word goes to the contrarian hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, who in his July letter to investors, noted: “Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for ... what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’: the fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?”

Mr Friedman is an idiot I just filled up my truck and I can swear that the price for carbon in Louisiana is currently 2.61 a gallon. Those guys in New York must have it pretty sweet if they dont have to pay for carbon.

As to the first bolded section, I have seen plenty of surveys of "climatologists" that splits the opinion about 50/50. If we use the generic term "scientists," then that opens the door to all manner of branches of science. Where does the line get drawn? Environmental scientists, Archeologists, Chemists, Social Scientists, or Physicists? Just because someone is a "scientist" doesn't mean that they are an expert in climatology.

The second statement is misleading as well... If Mother Nature is going to do what chemistry, biology, and physics dictate then why does she continue to astound all manner of "scientists" with her capabilities? Take for example the Gulf oil spill, at the beginning of the "crisis," people couldn't stop themselves from predicting the doom and gloom that would come for years (if no decades) to come from the spill and how the slick would be impossible to clean up. Fast forward to the present, where the fleets of boats are having trouble even FINDING any oil to filter out of the water.

For those who support this so-called climate bill I have a question for you .
Do you not find it hypocrtical that those who are pushing this are flying around in private jets and riding around in limos?
I find it amazing that with all the falsehoods from the past that people would actually buy into this propaganda from people who otherwise would not even give you the time of day .
This is about money and control ,nothing more and nothing less .
As a Russian immigrant to this country I 'll let you guess where the communist found a new home .

Ally

But they paid someone some ungodly amount of money for 'carbon offsets' so it's ok. And if they can afford it, why can't we? Oh, because we're not millionaires... (contrary to popular belief)

Thread Revival ... I found this on another site and I had to post.

CLIMATE CHANGE DICTIONARY

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.

Re: Climategate
 

Well, after five independant investigations into "Climategate," all five inquires determined that the science was not compromised. The "junk climate science" controversy came to nothing.

Also, the Arctic sea ice you were expecting to recover from the 2009 levels didn't happen. In fact, sea ice extent (area and volume) is trending in the other direction.


Arctic Ice September 2010 - Update #1

Professor Lewis, a 67-year member of the American Physical Society (kind of like the AMA for physicists), has decided to tender his resignation from the group, based on his perceptions that this group’s integrity has been compromised by the money flowing from the global warming scam.
The following is the letter he wrote, first reported by My Telegraph in the U.K.
Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Re: Climategate
 

Being forced to resort to the contrarian-du-jour is not a rebuttal. This curmudgeon's opinion was peer reviewed and overwhelmingly rejected.

Lewis and his vocal minority spent seven months trying to get signatures from the APS membership. They got 206 out of 47,000 members. That's less than 1/2 of one percent.

Richard Littlemore | Another Silly Climate Petition Exposed

October 12, 2010

Just further evidence of the death of real science and the pot o' gold mentality.

Still no evidence that quantifies the actual result of any of the proposed actions and further still no evidence that MMGW is the real threat.

The Earth has been warming for more than ten thousand years and suddenly it is our fault?:D

Re: Climategate
 

After five independant investigations, the manufactured scandal of Climategate came to nothing. And now this - oh, the irony:

USA Today has revealed an influential 2006 Republican congressional report that questioned the validity of global warming research was plagiarized (35 of the report’s 91 pages), and often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning.

College Inc. - Report: GMU scholar plagiarized in climate report

It looks as if the fast and smart money has a good handle on truth.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''



.In August, The Examiner reported that the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) was laying off employees.

Two months later, drowned out by the hubbub of the mid-term elections, came an Oct. 21 announcement that CCX would end carbon trading which, as PajamasMedia’s Steve Milloy pointed out, was “the only purpose for which it was founded.”

Funded by the left-wing Joyce Foundation, whose former board included none other than future president Barack Obama, Northwestern University professor Richard Sandor set up CCX as a “voluntary” method of trading “carbon credits.” It was envisioned as the main clearinghouse for what would eventually have been a $10 trillion decidedly non-voluntary market had cap-and-trade legislation passed the Senate as it did the House.

Former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines had already secured a patent for technology to extend carbon trading at CCX to individual residences. Had things gone according to plan, every business, non-profit organization and home in America that emitted carbon – which is all of them – would have formed an enormous revenue stream for savvy insiders such as Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs — CCX’s two largest investors – while imposing a crippling energy tax on everybody else.

Now that CCX itsef is disappearing like a puff of smoke, we can all breathe out carbon dioxide a lot easier.
.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Like a puff of smoke, Chicago Climate Exchange just fades away | Washington Examiner

Another brick in the wall, deniers of the world unite:

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds - Telegraph

Once again, we are again breaking snowfall records with the 2010-2011 winter season. I know I know, it's all due to Global Warming. :(

Record snow again buries Northeast - Yahoo! Malaysia News

UPDATE: Records beginning to fall with 2010-11 snow | mycentraljersey.com | MyCentralJersey.com

Syracuse area reaches average season's snowfall, with seven weeks of winter left | syracuse.com

Re: Climategate
 

The Truth, Still Inconvenient
By PAUL KRUGMAN

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/op...nes&emc=tha212

Guess you were obviously wrong and not the scientists. Becoming kind of a theme with you.

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asse...xlarge-169.jpg

Any time I hear someone start barking about denying global warming, I can reliably count on them to be a few bricks shy of a full load, hold a healthy share of internal redneck, and I think less of them. A lot less.

Yes, some winters are more intense, some summers more intense, and fire seasons get longer and more severe, but the larger picture, irrefutably backed by science, notes a continuing trend which is not cyclical, but due to human intervention and poor environmental stewardship. There is zero question of that, and to deny it, much like the ostrich with head below ground, is idiotic, ignorant, and short sighted. Very, very short sighted.

Yeah, I reserved judgement for a very long time, in part because I have many older relatives and family friends in science academia and they were very outspoken about the gross departures from established protocol on the part of many climate science types (weak science, biased documentation, outright data manipulation, rush to embrace political positions, etc).

They probably would have made more progress faster if they hadn't pushed the boundaries so hard and rushed to promote their ideas, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I've even been involved in DoD climate change mitigation planning. It's happening.

BS. They were confronted with a well-financed (fossil fuel industry) opposition PR campaign that lied, obfuscated and misled the usual non-reality based audience. Same folks that claimed cigarettes didn't cause cancer.

The only good thing about resurrecting this 7 year old thread is that new readers will be exposed to the wit and wisdom of our late friend, Jungle. :D

Yes that was of course to be expected, whether the science was right or wrong. Doesn't justify resorting to the same tactics.

Too many scientists abandoned accepted principles, destroying their own and others credibility, setting back their own cause. Like I said I'm not getting this from anyone's PR, this is from friends and close relatives (I have many in academia, all hard science types).

The science is and was correct. Big Oil has spent lots of money trying to convince people that 2 + 2 = 5 just like Big Tobacco did. Al Gore was right.

That took me by surprise. I didn't look at the dates, just clicked back a few pages and there he was posting...then I looked at the date. Sad.

The reason they destroyed their credibility is because they tried to pin climate change on CO2, and it simply isn't true. The rise in temperatures is clearly linked to other industrial gases, such as sulfur hexafluoride, as well as any hydrofluorocarbon really. This is why the climate models with a CO2 bias failed so miserably.
http://i65.tinypic.com/r9fztu.jpg


The irony here is that it's not your car that is raising temperatures, it's the manufacturing of your solar panels that is.

Pretty much most of the climate change gases comes from China.

i'm not sure that's fair, if you look at anything, medical field, general science, technology, etc., you will always find people on the fringes that are either totally wrong, or faking something. Really, you'll get the entire spectrum of the sample size is large enough. The question IMO is if those people are or were given more "due" than they are owed. Is it simply confirmation bias once a few people heard "what they wanted to hear" and then simply ignored the overwhelming majority? It also makes for a great story no matter what, that there is someone or something out there that is questioning the status quo. It's an even better story when they turn out to be right, but for sheer sensationalism, these people on the fringes will likely be "magnified" in media and other realms.

It's similar to space-program/moon lander deniers. How many of these hold an aerospace engineering degree? Do you need a degree to know whether or not we went to the moon? No, I think I can trust the majority of aerospace engineers to be telling us that the science and math is correct. I know and have talked to plenty of climatologists and meteorologists and the notion that these people are getting huge payoffs as part of some huge conspiracy is ridiculous, but again, some of these things make for fantastic stories and real life is usually much more dull.

Egads. What do all these experts and scientists know? Have you published yet?

I haven't tried to get into the journals, that's not my profession, but I know from friends that the publishing process has become almost entirely political these days. That's how you wind up with articles on the 36 genders.

Show me one climate model with a CO2 bias that has been remotely correct, you simply can't. We are not arguing about whether or not CC is real, or man made. The models suggested the ice caps would have already melted, they were not correct, even though the predicted amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are correct. There is even debate in the scientific community over the black body emission properties of CO2(Stefan-Boltzmann)

No they didn't. Obviously the global climate is an immensely complicated system. The specific effects are difficult to predict with precision, but the overall story was predicted and in some cases underestimated. Climate change is real, serious, man-made and CO2 is the primary green house gas. Those are not in dispute.

Well folks, its been settled and set in stone right here. No use studying or debating this topic any further then. ;)
Now. Back to a truly more important issue; debating whether to wait for FA's in the ride van or not. :D

Actually, water vapor is the primary GHG, and the temperature/CO2 relationship is in dispute. Also, look at the chart I posted above, every single model predicted the temperature would be much higher today than it is.



Even if CO2 were the primary GHG, the main source of pollution would be bunker oil used in China, especially shipping, yet that source of GHGs was excluded from the Paris accords. Why does the left always target the US right wing as the main source of CC obstructionism, while they ignore, and put in policies that allow China to continue on this path. It's 100% political, it's a disgrace.

It's time to implement major environmental tariffs on these countries, you kill two birds with one stone here, stopping their emissions, and correcting trade imbalances. I have spoken to Republican leadership about this as the next logical step in the trade war.

Have you thought about breathing less.....:D

Revenge of the cows! We’re doomed! :p

https://www.popsci.com/cow-farts-are...han-we-thought