http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/climate-models-climate-reality...

Is CATO good enough? When will the lack of realizations of the hysterical warnings of dire consequences reach the minds of those alarmists?

Why not.?

Serowbot wrote on 01/13/16 at 12:11:59:


What do you feel would be acceptable middle ground so to speak?

Best regards,

Quote:


If science had anything to do with "consensus" the earth would still be flat.

aving observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/father-of-global-warming-changes-his-mind-...


Just as some dismiss sources because they don't trust their motives, believing that they are entrenched in the greedy, right wing criminal element so clearly running things, I don't trust this bunch of scientists who have signed onto the idea that the human race is responsible for a Significant Amount of the change. Really? What percentage IS a Significant Amount?
Why have the computer models so utterly failed? Just exactly HOW does one take the temperature on a rooftop and then Adjust it to compensate for the location? Why stop using weather stations in remote locations? Why place them where they can't possibly report useful data? Unless you Want to see increase.

We were told that hurricanes would increase in number and severity. Not only did that Not Happen, they decreased.
Ice would be gone from the Arctic by 2012. And yet, I am aware of two rescue missions sent to save researchers trapped by ice.

Is there change? Yep, and we are responsible for some of it. But, if CO2 is the bad guy, then we need to plug volcanoes.
CO2 is pumped into hothouses because if they don't, the plants can't thrive.

NAFTA and all the other deals that shipped jobs away? They got shipped to places where regulations that force manufacturers to clean up the discharges don't exist, so, we crapped on America And the world, all in one swell foop.

This issue is just being used as a political football. Al Gore got his movie banned in some places, because the claims are so clearly bogus.

If they honestly want to be taken seriously they need to gather Honest Data, and this time, don't destroy the raw data used to create the basis for a conclusion. While I can See data collection from locations that are nonsensical, I can not be convinced that WE are such a threat.

This truly is a Global Issue, or it is Not. If it is true, then Americans paying a Carbon Tax will not make a dent in it. Yet, that is all I really see the politicians wanting.
Why am I not hearing Fat Al praising the science of Rossi and the hope for the world that That technology is?

Blood and Gore, check it out. A scheme to buy and sell Carbon Offset privileges. Imagine buying a license to throw out the trash on the side of the road.

When I start seeing money making schemes tied to legislation I become skeptical. Couple that with the lack of warnings about how many bad things would come coming true? Pardon my skepticism.

The notion that the right wing is somehow more greedy and willing to engage in corruption to get ahead is ridiculous.

I feel.....

Therefor.....

I am.

Right.

Heard a good one the other day, s'pose to be an oldie, but I never heard it.
It goes, you can't win an argument with an idiot, they have way more experience  

"If you don't like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes." - Twain

If you live on a coast,... consider a move...

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 01/13/16 at 22:09:36:


Exactly correct Jog.

Nothing predicted, absolutely nothing, has come to pass.

So you have to ask, how is it that our friend Sew here as well as others, continue to dump sand on their heads?

Sorry Jog but here's where we split: it's not a conspiracy in the sense you think of conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of group-think that pays societal and financial benefits. The idea the opposition to global warming is funded by 'big oil' is laughable. Global warming is a ticket to tenure, grants, funding, and just as important, membership in the 'club'. Find out what happens to the thousands of scientist (yes, thousands) who dare speak even a word of opposition. The global warming community of scientist is self perpetuating. If everyone actually re-evaluated their positions based on actual data, they'd come back with the conclusion that global warming, while it exist, is tiny for the most part, insignificant. If that happened, billions of dollars and the camaraderie all these scientist live with would disappear. The last conference in Paris brought 40,000 together. 40,000! And that's just the official scientist. That doesn't include all the side show business's that survive on the continued existence of global warming.

Sew and company don't want to stand out by looking like the odd ball so they go along with the group. They think "If Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie say its so, who am I to dispute that?..."
The world might be gone in 100 years of something, but it won't be because of sea level's rising the thickness of a dime or the average temp climbing a fraction of a degree.