The 95% consensus is now just 43%
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
Let's watch futurecurrents' head explode...
Hillary Clinton's climate change plan 'just plain silly', says leading expert
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/hillary-clinton-climate-change-plan
Hillary Clinton's climate change plan 'just plain silly', says leading expert
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/hillary-clinton-climate-change-plan
4 Billion Dollars a day to fix a problem that does not exist!
Money that could be better spent solving real issues like housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, and providing medical care.
Instead it is just being put in the pockets of political crony capitalists like Al Gore.
you could call modeling somewhat scientific until the models fail on live data.
once they fail its no longer good science.
the models failed as co2 went up for 19 years but temps did not.
once they fail its no longer good science.
the models failed as co2 went up for 19 years but temps did not.
I create complex decisioning models using large data sets for a living. Do you want to know what percentage of females age 24 to 35 living in a 4 block radius will take you up on a credit card offer? Well I can figure that out for you. And I guarantee my models match your actual results.
If my models failed in the manner that climate models failed... then I would be fired.
In my industry "climate models" are held up as the laughing stock and the obvious example of complete failure.
Climate models are even more accurate than you thought
The difference between modeled and observed global surface temperature changes is 38% smaller than previously thought
There’s a common myth that models are unreliable, often based on apples-to-oranges comparisons, like looking at satellite estimates of temperatures higher in the atmosphere versus modeled surface air temperatures. Or, some contrarians like John Christy will only consider the temperature high in the atmosphere, where satellite estimates are less reliable, and where people don’t live.
This new study has shown that when we do an apples-to-apples comparison, climate models have done a good job projecting the observed temperatures where humans live. And those models predict that unless we take serious and immediate action to reduce human carbon pollution, global warming will continue to accelerate into dangerous territory.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...odels-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
The difference between modeled and observed global surface temperature changes is 38% smaller than previously thought
There’s a common myth that models are unreliable, often based on apples-to-oranges comparisons, like looking at satellite estimates of temperatures higher in the atmosphere versus modeled surface air temperatures. Or, some contrarians like John Christy will only consider the temperature high in the atmosphere, where satellite estimates are less reliable, and where people don’t live.
This new study has shown that when we do an apples-to-apples comparison, climate models have done a good job projecting the observed temperatures where humans live. And those models predict that unless we take serious and immediate action to reduce human carbon pollution, global warming will continue to accelerate into dangerous territory.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...odels-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
“We have two political parties, neither one of which is willing to face reality,” said Hansen, who now heads up the Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program at Columbia University. “Conservatives pretend it’s all a hoax, and liberals propose solutions that are non-solutions.”
Hansen said that a president committed to halting climate change would implement a gradually rising fee for fossil fuel extraction, collected from the fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port of entry. In order to keep the policy revenue-neutral, the fee would be evenly distributed back to US citizens in the form of a tax dividend, completely offsetting the rise in energy costs for most consumers. Those with large carbon footprints – like the very rich, with multiple large homes, for example – would bear the brunt. In that way, market forces would be allowed to let renewables compete and lower the cost of clean energy.
To incentivize other countries to do the same, Hansen said, the US would have to impose equivalent tariffs on imports from countries without a carbon fee.
“It would take a few decades,” said Hansen. “But you could rapidly phase down emissions.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/hillary-clinton-climate-change-plan
But wait.... you love Hillary Clinton -- you said her "policies are in the right place".
Yet she is completely wrong on her climate change policies according to Hansen and other "experts".
Why isn't your head exploding?
CLIMATE CHANGE: THE HOAX THAT COSTS US $4 BILLION A DAY
"In the headline I call the climate change industry a hoax. That’s because, on any objective level it is. I don’t mean that all the scientists and businesses and politicians promoting it are abject liars — just most of them, even if it means that in order to keep earning their living they have to be dishonest with themselves about something they know in their hearts not to be true.
Alex Epstein, author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, sets out the fundamental problem with the climate change industry here:
..Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists” equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.
That’s it. If you accept the validity of that statement — and how can you not: it is unimpeachably accurate and verifiable — then it follows that the $1.5 trillion global warming industry represents the most grotesque misuse of manpower and scarce resources in the history of the world."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hange-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/
"In the headline I call the climate change industry a hoax. That’s because, on any objective level it is. I don’t mean that all the scientists and businesses and politicians promoting it are abject liars — just most of them, even if it means that in order to keep earning their living they have to be dishonest with themselves about something they know in their hearts not to be true.
Alex Epstein, author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, sets out the fundamental problem with the climate change industry here:
..Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists” equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.
That’s it. If you accept the validity of that statement — and how can you not: it is unimpeachably accurate and verifiable — then it follows that the $1.5 trillion global warming industry represents the most grotesque misuse of manpower and scarce resources in the history of the world."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hange-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/