|
|||||
|
|
|
|         
|
|
|||||
You can only believe this crap if you don't understand math and ignore (deny?) the factual evidence.
Look at the graph carefully and note where we are on that scale.
1) Only an alarmist can look at a flatlined graph that long term goes down as say "OMG GLOBAL WARMING".
Do you even math?
Don't give me this "climate change" crap, the climate has *always* changed. What idiot things Earth's climate is static? That's never been true in all of history, these are wesele words.
Look at data, not opinions.
2) It's a *projection*. How many of these alarmist predictions have evr come true? Zero, that's how many.
Look at data, not opinions.
Here's a graph showing the difference between the climate models (top lines) and the actual measures temperature. Note as the difference between the two increased so did their confidence in the model.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/gc1.jpg
Earth's surface temperature hasn't increased since 1998. Source: NASA/NOAA/climate.gov http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
...even though CO2 kept rising, therefore CO2 did not drive temperature.
CO2 stopped rising despite increased fossil fuel usage, therefore the CO2 was not anthropomorphic. http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html
Sea ice is *increasing*
Source: US NAtional Snot and Ice data center, which visualizes NASA data http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/nsidc%20globalseaiceareasince2000.gif The only reason it warmed 1978-1998: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/warming-not-warming.png Is because of the sharp downturn in temperature after the htter-than-it-is-now period of the 1930s:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/hawaii.jpg
This is also confirmed by empirical observarion in Grenland/Denmark: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.5/glaciers_greenland_photos/
" When it became colder again in the 1950s and 1960s, glaciers actually started growing," "
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1481.html
Here's why dishonest science denying alarmists lie:
" As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding "
https://web.archive.org/web/20120425004724/http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
Which s the same reason media lies:
" The Telegraph also understands that there are concerns within The Guardian about funded journalism on its website. It confirmed that it is in discussions with the European Climate Foundation "regarding the funding of journalism projects". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11425580/Guardian-changed-Iraq-article-to-avoid-offending-Apple.html Here's how they "spin": Headline: " Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt " Facts in the body of the article: "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
In a warming world it would have been erly not "right on time:
Science and reason looks at the data and forms an opinion.
Religion takes conclusion and keeps asserting it despite the data.
I remember when Dawkins used to do the former but has now apparently become a climate cultist in spite of not because of the scientific evidence.
Shame.
Look at data, not opinions.
|
|