Climate Scientists Struggling...

10 Jul 2013 18:18 #51 by Obam me
Replied by Obam me on topic Climate Scientists Struggling...
And still there are those who voluntarily pay their carbon credits every month when they pay their utility bills...and you know who I'm talking about !!!!! :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol :rofllol

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Sep 2013 16:15 #52 by Blazer Bob
IPCC through the eyes of thinkprogress.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0 ... e-weather/


Alarming IPCC Prognosis: 9°F Warming For U.S., Faster Sea Rise, More Extreme Weather, Permafrost Collapse
By Joe Romm on September 27, 2013 at 1:28 pm



Humanity's choice (via IPCC): Aggressive climate action ASAP (left figure) minimizes future warming. Continued inaction (right figure) results in catastrophic levels of warming, 9°F over much of U.S.


The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now says we are as certain that humans are dramatically changing the planet’s climate as we are that smoking causes cancer.

So perhaps the best way to think about the IPCC, which has issued a summary of its latest report reviewing the state of climate science, is as a super-cautious team of brilliant diagnosticians and specialists (who, like many doctors, aren’t the greatest communicators). They are the best in the world at what they do — the climate equivalent of the Cleveland Clinic or Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins — where you and the rest of humanity have just gone through a complete set of medical tests and are awaiting the diagnosis, prognosis, and recommended course of treatment. (It has a big waiting room — called planet Earth.)

The diagnosis is that humans are suffering from a fever (and related symptoms) caused by our own actions — primarily emissions of carbon pollution. Indeed, team IPCC is more certain than the last time we came in 6 years ago and ignored their advice. They are 95% to 100% certain we are responsible for most of the added fever since 1950. They explain:"..

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Sep 2013 16:26 #53 by Blazer Bob
LOL. This even beats abortion mills.


"No children, happy to go extinct', tweets weatherman after grim climate-change report made him cry (now he's considering a vasectomy)
Eric Holthaus, who used to do weather for Wall Street Journal, was reacting to Friday's findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Scientists found in the report that it was 'extremely likely' that humans are causing warming trends
Holthaus said he has decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and has considered having a vasectomy
He tweeted on Friday 'no children, happy to go extinct'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2gEFxztAh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Sep 2013 08:24 #54 by FredHayek
So us childless humans should get automatic carbon credits?

And no more deductions for dependents, tax the breeders! They are killing the planet!

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Sep 2013 21:01 #55 by Blazer Bob
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... ollies.php


"STILL MORE CLIMATE FOLLIES
Yesterday I noted a sentence from the draft Chapter 9 (“Evaluation of Climate Models”) of the IPCC’s full climate science report that reads:

The ability of a climate model to make future climate projections cannot be directly evaluated. . .

Well, today the “final” report was posted online (“final” because the IPCC says it may still be re-written to conform to the politically-determined Summary for Policymakers), and this sentence has been dropped! But in its place is a sentence even more embarrassing, as it attempts to deflect attention away from the failure of the models to predict the current 15-year pause in warming:

“[T]hese projections were not intended to be predictions over the short time scales for which observations are available to date.”

So not only can’t the IPCC predict the future; they can’t even predict the past.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

01 Oct 2013 08:13 #56 by Rick

OmniScience wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: There is no support for your smear against these hard working scientists. But of course you prefer petroleum geologists employed by the oil companies for your "unbiased" "facts".


If you think all of these "hard working scientists" are not driven by personal agendas and have some sort of untouchable level of altruism to them, you are badly mistaken. Climate change research funding is BIG money, in the billions and growing. That's why anyone who questions their failed models and inaccurate predictions is demonized and attacked, and in some cases fired.

:like: Follow the money and you can pretty accurately predict who will believe what.

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy

George Orwell

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.147 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+