Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

One of many tidbits, this one from Anthony J. Sadar:

"As the New Year dawns, old challenges hang on.
One of the biggest challenges relates to the ambience of c*****e-c****e science.

So many folks are invested in an expectation of disastrous geophysical conditions resulting from modern lifestyles that are fueled by ancient energy sources.

So, the big money (in the trillions of dollars) is on the continuation of supposed wacky weather, hustled as proof of long-term, global c*****e c****e.

But here are five reasons to remain unconvinced that humans are culpable for such acts of nature.

1. Actual data trumps forecasts. No matter how you measure it, the global average temperature trend has flattened out over the past decade and a half. Even so, the tiny fraction of a degree increase in temperature expected for 2014 over previous years will be hailed as being the highest on record. Despite this almost meaningless increase, there is a distinct possibility that temperatures will be once more dropping as solar activity and ocean circulations relentlessly work to redistribute heat across the globe.

2. Carbon dioxide makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Compare this small percentage with water, which is the dominant climate regulator. Water, in the vapor phase at 0% through 4% of atmospheric concentration and in the liquid and solid phases, is apparently the biggest climate controller on the planet.

3. The purveyors of a long-term human-caused global c*****e c****e catastrophe constantly confuse weather with climate and cherry pick data to aggravate public angst over future meteorological mayhem. This permits, for example, huckster politicians to push what is often referred to as "the social cost of carbon." This phrase should not be confused with any balanced assessment, such as a traditional Cost-Benefit Analysis, which would likely put some much-needed perspective back into any reasonable deliberation of climate concerns.

4. No matter how brilliant climate prognosticators are, nor how sophisticated their algorithms and super their computers, they are far from knowing with sufficient certainty the far future. This is one reason they deserve a skeptical eye, for the allegedly absolute certainty of the "settled science" as the linchpin of the case made to the public.

5. Finally, real human misery requires immediate attention, and access to low-cost f****l f**ls goes a long way to alleviating suffering. At least a billion people don’t have access to modern energy, living instead off truly dirty fuel sources such as smoky wood and dried dung. A mere one percent increase in so-called carbon pollution would be enough to lift up a billion of the world's poor. As cheap, clean, abundant energy powers people out of poverty, high-cost policies empower and enrich politicians and their enablers, who hope to profit from carbon hysteria. Thus, the incentive for meaningful changes is weak, unfortunately given the powerlessness of those who would benefit.

So this New Year, for the sake of the Earth and its inhabitants, when it comes to climate futures, we need to resolve to invest in less profit-driven science, and be more guarded and less gullible with the diviners of disaster. More than a billion people will thank us."

AnchorageAK

I do not know where you get your facts but I suggest two things:
- First your inane diatribe is in the wrong forum,
- Check your facts from some reliable sources.

This is a photography forum not an uninformed political soapbox.

Good day.

AnchorageAk, PhD

GDRoth Loc: Southeast Michigan USA

I'll listen to the scientists, thank you very much

lovitlots Loc: Tottenham, Ontario, Canada

You're overlooking something. Yes the scientists could be wrong but then again they could be right and just a little off on the time frame. So here's the gamble, humanity could follow your prediction as opposed to the scientists or they could embrace the new technology where we don't have to use the f****l f**ls any more or considerably less of it. Taking the f****l f**ls out of the air would clean it up considerably, even by today's standards and create a lot of new jobs in the process. Using renewable energy would keep the cost of it down through competition. Another bonus. And if the scientists are right and you're wrong there will be a liveable world for my kids. Your gamble.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I suggest that you consult the Drudge Report. The is a story about how climate data has been erroneously measured. The temperature measurements have been altered to make the temperature appear warmer than the actual measurements. Is it true that the Phd after your name stands for Pile it Higher and Deeper?

AnchorageAK

If the Drudge Report is your source, I feel really sorry for you.

For your intellectual standing I suggest you eschew citing your references.

I will not address your insults.

AnchorageAk, PhD

GDRoth Loc: Southeast Michigan USA

I'm sure the Drudge Report outweighs 99.3% of the world's scientists............ "sarcasm font"

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Another conspiracy huh?

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I look at sources from all Political viewpoints. When G****l w*****g advocates Portray 2014 as the warmest year on record, when the data show that it was warmer by .01 degree I tend to disbelieve every thing that they say. An increase of that "magnitude" is a s**m. You must be pretty thin skinned if you can't withstand a very slight jab. I suggest you look at the Drudge report even if you think it is biased Isuppose that you think that the major news networks report the absolute t***h. If so I would suggest that you have never heard of Brian Williams.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Dude.......first, I don't know where you got your phD, but if you really accept the drivel on the g****l w*****g theory, and that the debate is over, and that there is consensus on it, then you wasted your money and time.

I DO accept real science, and I get my facts from, well, published research and opinions based in them that to me knowledge don't allow corrupted data (unlike the lemmings that accept corrupt data such as the "hockey stick" to support the alarmist view).

Second, you're correct. I intended to post it in the general discussion, but in typing on a 4+ inch screen on a moving train, I screwed up and posted it to the photo discussion. My baby don the location.

Third, it was meant as a response to an earlier thread that spewed several pages of emotional "facts" on g****l w*****g.

Fourth, I am quite informed on the subject matter.....that is why I responded. You might want to take you're own advice.

Good day.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Please post topics of this type in the proper forum. This is not a General Photography Discussion topic. Forums such as General Chit-Chat and The Attic were created for topics such as this

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Care to share your data that supports the comment on "...99.3% of the worlds scientists"? Of course, I already know the data is not there to support you, but......

I will share a point from Fred Singer's:

"By now, the question of a scientific consensus on AGW may have become largely academic. What counts are the actual climate observations, which have shaken public faith in climate models that preach DAGW. The wild claims of the IPCC are being offset by the more sober, fact-based publications of the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on C*****e C****e).

While many national science academies and organizations still cling to the ever-changing "evidence" presented by the IPCC, it may be significant that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has t***slated and published a condensation of NIPCC reports.

In the words of physicist Prof Howard "Cork" Hayden:
"If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data.

As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident -- from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC's Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report)."

Climate activists seem to embrace faith and ideology -- and are no longer interested in facts."

Now, the others are right and if we wish to continue we should bounce this over to the General area.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

First of all Drudge only reports, and furthermore 99.3 % of scientists do not agre that g****l w*****g exists. In addition, on a sunny day 99.3% of scientists can't agree on whether or not the sun is shining.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Ahhh, another insulting preacher.
Please walk over and press the button on the elevator. Then take it straight up to the ATTIC.
There is a pulpit/soapbox there with your name on it.
Give'm Hell!! :lol:
SS

doduce Loc: Holly Springs NC

IMHO, this belongs in Chit Chat or The Attic. I've asked Admin to move it to the appropriate resting place.