Man's replenishmnet of depleted CO2 is one of the best things to ever happen to the earth. Crop yields are up 3x since 1960 and the deserts are greening. 400ppm is still too low. 1,500 would be a more normal level and is what greenhouses use. No sign of unusual warming yet, alas. We are still in an ice age and the ice sheets are due back. No worries about oxygen reduction, either. O2 is 21% of the atmosphere and we can barely put a dent in it (CO2 is 1/25th of 1%). It's all good, so burn baby burn. Have a look at this chart: http://pubsecrets.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/co2-over-geologic-time.png And this ominous one: http://www.scottcreighton.co.uk/images/Spiral-Precession/Glacial_eras.jpg
I can see Edward Bernays laughing his ass off... I am so surprised that on a liberal forum like the Boise Weekly there are so many "'climate change deniers".. Very interesting..
97% agreement number that's always reported as "settled scientific fact," is a joke. It was a miniscule sample, and many respondents were unqualified as experts. Look it up. Warming has paused for 18+ years; all catastrophic predictions based on human-entered calculations in human-designed software. I'm a software developer - GIGO garbage in garbage out.
This was a also scientific consensus about climate change. "Settled Science" isn't real science. It's quite the opposite. Science is supposed to challenge assumptions, not assume their validity of a consensus because it's a consensus.
Naomi Oreskes, one of the authors of the book, Merchants of Doubt, on which the movie is based, once cast doubt on models with the following skeptical statement,
"A model, like a novel, may resonate with nature, but it is not a "real" thing. Like a novel, a model may be convincing--it may "ring true" if it is consistent with our experience of the natural world. But just as we may wonder how much the characters in a novel are drawn from real life and how much is artifice, we might ask the same of a model: How much is based on observation and measurement of accessible phenomena, how much is based on informed judgment, and how much is convenience?
Finally, we must admit that a model may confirm our biases and support incorrect intuitions. Therefore, models are most useful when they are used to challenge existing formulations, rather than to validate or verify them. Any scientist who is asked to use a model to verify or validate a predetermined result should be suspicious."
Oreskes, et al. Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences. Science, 1994.
John--"97% of the scientists attending a climate conference agree that AGW is real."
But of course - climate has been changing for billions of years.
The issue is whether man's CO2 is causing the current warming which is less warm than previous warm periods. Droughts that are less severe then previous droughts and hurricanes that have NOT increased .
I sort of look forward to dystopia... It seems the best method to get all the silly humans back to reality of any kind... EMBRACE DYSTOPIA! :)
97% of the scientists attending a climate conference agree that AGW is real. That's about 2000. 31,000 scientists signed a petition saying AGW is a political scam. The Clintons are master practitioners of deception, ranking up there with Adolf Hitler. Barry tries, but even with a compliant press, the internet and the public keep calling his bluff. I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening, it has been since the world began. Man does need to clean up his act, but so far all I have seen is attempts at wealth redistribution.
The fact that people are snarky or suspicious does nothing to prove they are correct. Climate change is here and it's real. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree. Of course, in Idaho, scientific evidence is not recognized. That's why parents pray over their kids till they die. That's why we have a legislator who thinks if a woman swallows a pill containing a camera, it will show whether she's pregnant.
Idaho has one of the worst public education systems in the U.S. And it shows. Just look at the other comments on here. For instance: the veracity of a movie is shown by how much it has made at the box office? So "Dumb and Dumber" must be true by that "metric"? LOL!
Of course the really big money is in promoting climate hysteria.
The US Government reports government cash to the climate alarm industry was $8 BILLION in 2010 - probably much more now: “Funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, and is organized in a complex, crosscutting system. “ From US GOVERNMENT: http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318556.pdf
Don’t miss the part about the $26.1 billion as funding for climate change programs and activities.
Merchants of Doubt's box office pretty much serves as a metric by which one may gauge the effectiveness of the propaganda of AGW on the public. Oh wait $247,000 by week 6, can you spell BOMB?
Speaking of "clownish"...
How can ANYBODY take it seriously when a guy hops aboard a Boeing 747 to fly down to the Florida Everglades, to deliver a teleprompter lecture about our evil carbon-burning ways and how they're raising ocean levels? And speaking of the Jet Set, I haven't paid enough attention this year to know where Algore, "The Al Sharpton of Global Warming," will be standing when he delivers his scolding.
I'd prefer to get my lectures from people who practice what they preach, rather from the one-percenters of "carbon footprint"!!!
What’s particularly entertaining about this Merchants of Doubt vs. Merchants of Faith man-made global warming show, is how closely it resembles the arguments about whether there is a god that created this globe or not.
Vast swaths of humanity (including many scientists) believe, without a doubt, scientific evidence or not, that the creation of earth was a god-made global event. Millions of people have been murdered by these same individuals-of-faith, who faithfully believe that this ‘god’ was/is on their side.
If anything, what this demonstrates, without a doubt, is the all pervasiveness of man-made global indoctrination, which has been, and is driven particularly by those who desire to control and exploit their fellow human beings, while it is enabled by willing participants for their own self-serving interests or their misguided intentions.
Scientific history is replete with examples of consensus views that were flat-out wrong, and scientists continue to be used to legitimize the advancement of agendas that increase the amount of control and exploitation of global populations.
Meanwhile, the public, through repetition of desired consensus views, and having limited time to deeply examine the scientific ‘facts’, is manipulated into adopting the beliefs of those who are manufacturing consent.
© 2015 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation