Another report has confirmed that climate change is occurring and that human activity is responsible. These studies go back to the 1970s, but very little has been done to deal with the problem - and it is a problem. Even the US military is concerned about the effects of climate change. Initially, critics of such reports claimed that climate change was nonsense. Now, many of them admit that it is real, but they deny that human activity is the cause. Their fear is that trying to stop global warming would cut into the income of billionaires in the oil industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

Another report has confirmed that climate change is occurring and that human activity is responsible. These studies go back to the 1970s, but very little has been done to deal with the problem - and it is a problem. Even the US military is concerned about the effects of climate change. Initially, critics of such reports claimed that climate change was nonsense. Now, many of them admit that it is real, but they deny that human activity is the cause. Their fear is that trying to stop global warming would cut into the income of billionaires in the oil industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

Here is a secret about official reports - they always say what the person paying for the report wants them to say. You always need to go back to the terms of reference that the report was created under. For a local example. We have a small river here in our semi-arid part of the plains. The government commissioned a report to determine just how much land in the area could be irrigated. assuming an unlimited supply of water. It was 100's of thousands of acres, and it had all the farmers wide eyed and tongue drolling over all that prospected land that is only good enough to raise cows on, becoming a rich paradise under irrigation, if we just built the dam. Here's the catch - that unlimited supply of water doesn't exist. In another report (god forbid you put facts together in a single report) you have the actual capacity of the dam. No where in that report does it mention how many acres can be irrigated. To get that number you have to go back to the first report - and then do the math with the actual amount of water that could be supplied by the damn.

The result - those 100's of thousands of acres actually come down to a little over 10,000 acres and that was with a total yearly draw down on the dam. That means that it would fill up to be a lake in the spring, but by the end of summer, it would be empty. Then you take out a map, and look at where that land is, and who owns it. Would you be surprised to learn - it was owned by the very politician pushing for the creation of the dam?

But there were more reports - one dealing with the potential for recreational use of the dam. We have boating, and fishing, and swimming, and all sorts of potential. Again the terms of reference for the report specifically said, to assume that the dam would be at full volume all of the time. Well that 100% draw down of the dam from irrigation would give you a body of water that varied by 90 vertical feet through the year. So those boat docks that are at the edge of the water when full, are nothing but mud flats by the middle of the summer.

It goes on and on. Each repot being accurate in relation to its terms of reference - but a total pile of shit when looked at in totality.

The point - climate change is nothing but a bunch of useless reports that don't deal with all of the facts in totality. Just follow the money to who is commission the reports and why. Yes, the climate changes - it has been changing for billions of years. We are still coming out of the last ice age, and if history repeats itself we will be going back into another ice age at some point in the future. Man has nothing to do with any of it, and there is nothing that man can do to change it. Pollution and climate change are not equal, and one does not cause the other.

Examples of inaccuracy's of the report are evident right in the first paragraph. Where it states that average temperatures have risen rapidly and drastically since 1980. That alarming statement - right at the start of the report - can be easily proven false by a Grade 5 science class. Where I live, I have a neighbour that has been recording the daily weather since 1908 when the grandfather first moved onto the homestead. That is over 100 years of records from one spot. And it doesnt' take much effort to see that the local weather follows a 30 year cycle, and that temperatures today have not increased rapidly and drastically since the 80's.

All you need to do is go back to when Gore made his onerous predictions of what the world would look like today - to realize just how full of shit his predictions were. But he continues making them because he makes 10's of millions of dollars from pushing the whole climate change story.

Much of the predictions are based on computer models where the model is flawed in some basic forms, and the predictions from the models have never been corretct. Which is what happens when you feed garbage into a computer - you get garbage out.

And again just picking from this story - they are quoating a political science professor - what the fuck does she actually know about weather. It is just more proof that the whole thing is politically motivated for a political conclusion. Not a scientific conclusion.

Here is a secret about official reports - they always say what the person paying for the report wants them to say. You always need to go back to the terms of reference that the report was created under. For a local example. We have a small river here in our semi-arid part of the plains. The government commissioned a report to determine just how much land in the area could be irrigated. assuming an unlimited supply of water. It was 100's of thousands of acres, and it had all the farmers wide eyed and tongue drolling over all that prospected land that is only good enough to raise cows on, becoming a rich paradise under irrigation, if we just built the dam. Here's the catch - that unlimited supply of water doesn't exist. In another report (god forbid you put facts together in a single report) you have the actual capacity of the dam. No where in that report does it mention how many acres can be irrigated. To get that number you have to go back to the first report - and then do the math with the actual amount of water that could be supplied by the damn.

The result - those 100's of thousands of acres actually come down to a little over 10,000 acres and that was with a total yearly draw down on the dam. That means that it would fill up to be a lake in the spring, but by the end of summer, it would be empty. Then you take out a map, and look at where that land is, and who owns it. Would you be surprised to learn - it was owned by the very politician pushing for the creation of the dam?

But there were more reports - one dealing with the potential for recreational use of the dam. We have boating, and fishing, and swimming, and all sorts of potential. Again the terms of reference for the report specifically said, to assume that the dam would be at full volume all of the time. Well that 100% draw down of the dam from irrigation would give you a body of water that varied by 90 vertical feet through the year. So those boat docks that are at the edge of the water when full, are nothing but mud flats by the middle of the summer.

It goes on and on. Each repot being accurate in relation to its terms of reference - but a total pile of shit when looked at in totality.

The point - climate change is nothing but a bunch of useless reports that don't deal with all of the facts in totality. Just follow the money to who is commission the reports and why. Yes, the climate changes - it has been changing for billions of years. We are still coming out of the last ice age, and if history repeats itself we will be going back into another ice age at some point in the future. Man has nothing to do with any of it, and there is nothing that man can do to change it. Pollution and climate change are not equal, and one does not cause the other.

Examples of inaccuracy's of the report are evident right in the first paragraph. Where it states that average temperatures have risen rapidly and drastically since 1980. That alarming statement - right at the start of the report - can be easily proven false by a Grade 5 science class. Where I live, I have a neighbour that has been recording the daily weather since 1908 when the grandfather first moved onto the homestead. That is over 100 years of records from one spot. And it doesnt' take much effort to see that the local weather follows a 30 year cycle, and that temperatures today have not increased rapidly and drastically since the 80's.

All you need to do is go back to when Gore made his onerous predictions of what the world would look like today - to realize just how full of shit his predictions were. But he continues making them because he makes 10's of millions of dollars from pushing the whole climate change story.

Much of the predictions are based on computer models where the model is flawed in some basic forms, and the predictions from the models have never been corretct. Which is what happens when you feed garbage into a computer - you get garbage out.

And again just picking from this story - they are quoating a political science professor - what the fuck does she actually know about weather. It is just more proof that the whole thing is politically motivated for a political conclusion. Not a scientific conclusion.

Another report has confirmed that climate change is occurring and that human activity is responsible. These studies go back to the 1970s, but very little has been done to deal with the problem - and it is a problem. Even the US military is concerned about the effects of climate change. Initially, critics of such reports claimed that climate change was nonsense. Now, many of them admit that it is real, but they deny that human activity is the cause. Their fear is that trying to stop global warming would cut into the income of billionaires in the oil industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

“Climate change” an appallingly stupid euphemism. The climate is always changing. The environmentalists are the real climate-change “deniers” because they basically want global temperatures to maintain absolute static relative to 1970—not coincidentally the point at which environmentalists first began paying any attention to the issue.

Earth's climate may be the single most complex thing we've ever studied. Tens of thousands, possibly millions, of variables, all interacting in countless ways including countless feedback loops. Utterly unknown upper-atmosphere processes. Equally unknown oceanographic effects. And the climate "scientists" want to pretend all that damn-near-infinite complexity doesn't exist and claim it's all about CO2.

Another report has confirmed that climate change is occurring and that human activity is responsible. These studies go back to the 1970s, but very little has been done to deal with the problem - and it is a problem. Even the US military is concerned about the effects of climate change. Initially, critics of such reports claimed that climate change was nonsense. Now, many of them admit that it is real, but they deny that human activity is the cause. Their fear is that trying to stop global warming would cut into the income of billionaires in the oil industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html