Climate change DENIERS. An expression the spoon fed crowd likes to use against those that don't believe climate change is man made.
But the real DENIERS are the people that don't think mother nature controls the climate. Just like she's been doing for 2 billion years. The DENIERS are the fucking idiots that think they're going to control the climate by making other people consume less energy.
But the real DENIERS are the people that don't think mother nature controls the climate. Just like she's been doing for 2 billion years. The DENIERS are the fucking idiots that think they're going to control the climate by making other people consume less energy.
42 Degrees today :beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1:
Starting tomorrow 80 degrees 4 straight days @)
Today 85 tomorrow 88 :aktion033
cheersgif
Today 55 degrees....What a joke :>(
[ Liberal maggots keep lying, and their ignorant lemmings lap it up ]
[h=1]Delingpole: Why Congress Shouldn’t Trust Climate ‘Experts’[/h]
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais23 May 2018103[h=2]How climate ‘experts’ love to mock the ignorance of evil, anti-science Republicans![/h]E & E News had field day recently, deriding the stupidity apparently on display at a meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee.
Here is how it began its snarky put-down:
Those are some of the skeptical assertions echoed by Republicans on the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee yesterday. The lawmakers at times embraced research that questions mainstream climate science during a hearing on how technology can be used to address global warming.
A leading climate scientist testifying before the panel spent much of the two hours correcting misstatements.
The “leading climate scientist” in question was one Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts and former senior adviser to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Sounds impressive. Except, as Paul Homewood notes, the idea that Duffy is a dispassionate observer is risible. Woods Hole Research Center is a green think tank, not a reputable scientific research establishment. And Duffy is more of a policy wonk than a practicing scientist.
Not that this would matter if he knew what he was talking about. If you’re going to put Republican congressmen right on their scientific ignorance, you need to do so with actual facts, right?
Paul Homewood has now exposed his three falsest claims for the #fakenews they are:
It gives you an idea, doesn’t it, as to why there is such a growing divide between the mostly liberals pushing the climate change doom narrative and the mostly conservatives who think it’s a hoax?
That’ll be because the conservatives generally get their facts right while the liberals hide behind junk science mumbo jumbo, appeals to authority and sneery, and mocking articles like the one published by E & E.
[h=1]Delingpole: Why Congress Shouldn’t Trust Climate ‘Experts’[/h]
71
Here is how it began its snarky put-down:
The Earth is not warming. The White Cliffs of Dover are tumbling into the sea and causing sea levels to rise. Global warming is helping grow the Antarctic ice sheet.Those are some of the skeptical assertions echoed by Republicans on the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee yesterday. The lawmakers at times embraced research that questions mainstream climate science during a hearing on how technology can be used to address global warming.
A leading climate scientist testifying before the panel spent much of the two hours correcting misstatements.
Sounds impressive. Except, as Paul Homewood notes, the idea that Duffy is a dispassionate observer is risible. Woods Hole Research Center is a green think tank, not a reputable scientific research establishment. And Duffy is more of a policy wonk than a practicing scientist.
Not that this would matter if he knew what he was talking about. If you’re going to put Republican congressmen right on their scientific ignorance, you need to do so with actual facts, right?
Paul Homewood has now exposed his three falsest claims for the #fakenews they are:
1) The rate of global sea-level rise has accelerated and is now four times faster than it was 100 years ago
According to Jevrejeva’s study in 2014, based on 1277 tidal gauges:
The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yr− 1 since 1970.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750?via=ihub
And this is their graph of global sea levels:
Jevrejevaetal2013GPChange
It is plainly evident that sea levels have been steadily rising since the mid 19thC, with a slight slow down between 1970 and 1990.
The IPCC acknowledged the same thing in their AR5 Report in 2013.
andAccording to Jevrejeva’s study in 2014, based on 1277 tidal gauges:
The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yr− 1 since 1970.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750?via=ihub
And this is their graph of global sea levels:
Jevrejevaetal2013GPChange
It is plainly evident that sea levels have been steadily rising since the mid 19thC, with a slight slow down between 1970 and 1990.
The IPCC acknowledged the same thing in their AR5 Report in 2013.
2) We have satellite records clearly documenting a shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheet and an acceleration of that shrinkage
Again, this is a fake claim.
According to a NASA study in 2015, the land ice is actually growing in Antarctica:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
And the science is not even that controversial. Put simply, the warming of the climate since the Ice Age has led to increased snowfall over the Antarctic.
andAgain, this is a fake claim.
According to a NASA study in 2015, the land ice is actually growing in Antarctica:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
And the science is not even that controversial. Put simply, the warming of the climate since the Ice Age has led to increased snowfall over the Antarctic.
3) Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) said scientists said in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling, a popular talking point of climate skeptics and the subject of a fake Time magazine cover that has become a meme. Duffy corrected him and said that was essentially an outlier position at the time and that scientists long ago determined that humans were warming the planet
This is the biggest BS of the lot.
The cooling of the Earth’s climate between 1940 and the 1970s, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, was well known by climate scientists at the time.
For instance, HH Lamb wrote this piece for the UNESCO’s Courier magazine in 1973:
You can read more details about just how embarrassingly Duffy got it wrong here at Homewood’s place.This is the biggest BS of the lot.
The cooling of the Earth’s climate between 1940 and the 1970s, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, was well known by climate scientists at the time.
For instance, HH Lamb wrote this piece for the UNESCO’s Courier magazine in 1973:
It gives you an idea, doesn’t it, as to why there is such a growing divide between the mostly liberals pushing the climate change doom narrative and the mostly conservatives who think it’s a hoax?
That’ll be because the conservatives generally get their facts right while the liberals hide behind junk science mumbo jumbo, appeals to authority and sneery, and mocking articles like the one published by E & E.
Truth will win out in the end, of course. But the battle won’t be over for a long time yet.
88 today
90 tomorrow @)
90 tomorrow @)
Yesterday 90 degrees
Today 62 :beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1:
Today 62 :beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1::beavis1:
Last night I'm sleeping in shorts no shirt.
Tonight I'm bundled up with the heat on
Suck a dick Al Gore & Hershey Bar cheersgif
Tonight I'm bundled up with the heat on
Suck a dick Al Gore & Hershey Bar cheersgif
Judge Tosses Bogus “Global Warming” Lawsuits Against Big Oil
by Jacob Wohl June 26, 2018 25 Comments
On Monday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup released a detailed 16 page ruling ends a years’ long effort by liberal mayors in Oakland and San Francisco to sue big oil companies, including Bay Area based Chevron.
The suits by Oakland and San Francisco sought money from oil companies to pay for a sea level rise that has yet to materialize, but is on the way, according the models cited in the litigation. The cases brought by Oakland and San Francisco were among the first serious efforts by municipalities which sought compensation for the alleged impact of fossil fuels on the climate. The central tenant of the lawsuits brought against the oil companies is the belief that like Tobacco companies, oil companies create a public hazard by continuing the production of fossil fuels.
Judge Alsup noted that the cities of Oakland and San Francisco have inarguably benefited from the production of fossil fuels. Although remarks to this effect were made by Judge Alsup, the final decision did not attempt to tabulate the grand total of all the costs and benefits provided to the cities by fossil fuels.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in part: “Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded?” he wrote. “Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”
Attorneys for the cities of Oakland and San Francisco say that they are not yet ready to concede defeat and that they are currently reviewing their options.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/judge-tosses-bogus-global-warming-lawsuits-against-big-oil/
cheersgif
by Jacob Wohl June 26, 2018 25 Comments
On Monday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup released a detailed 16 page ruling ends a years’ long effort by liberal mayors in Oakland and San Francisco to sue big oil companies, including Bay Area based Chevron.
Judge Alsup noted that the cities of Oakland and San Francisco have inarguably benefited from the production of fossil fuels. Although remarks to this effect were made by Judge Alsup, the final decision did not attempt to tabulate the grand total of all the costs and benefits provided to the cities by fossil fuels.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in part: “Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded?” he wrote. “Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”
Attorneys for the cities of Oakland and San Francisco say that they are not yet ready to concede defeat and that they are currently reviewing their options.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/judge-tosses-bogus-global-warming-lawsuits-against-big-oil/
cheersgif
‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error
A highly circulated study claiming oceans are warming at a much higher rate due to global warming contains "key errors," forcing researchers to issue a correction.
The study published by the journal Nature on Oct. 31 by researchers at Princeton University and UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography claimed the oceans were warming at a rate 60 percent higher than previously thought.
However, a mathematical error discovered by independent climate scientist Nic Lewis after he perused the study's first page has led the journal to retract its key finding. The study has a much larger margin of error, making their findings of a 60 percent increase in ocean warming less precise, and actually between 10 percent and 70 percent.
The lead researcher now says its findings are practically meaningless, with a margin of error "too big now to really weigh in" on ocean temperatures.
When first published, the study led to "alarming" warnings in mainstream media outlets, claiming the "world has seriously underestimated the amount of heat soaked up by our oceans over the past 25 years."
CNN initially reported the planet is "‘more sensitive' than thought" based on the study and would lead to "more dire" predictions than the U.N.'s latest, which gave Earth only 12 more years.
CNN has since reported "errors were made" but is still defending the study claiming its scientific errors "do not invalidate the study's methodology."
The Washington Post is now reporting the scientists made "key errors."
"A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought," the paper reported. "But researchers now say they can't necessarily make that claim."
"Unfortunately, we made mistakes here," said Ralph Keeling, a Scripps researcher and coauthor of the study, adding the mathematical error means a "much larger margin of error in the findings."
Keeling told the San Diego Union Tribune he was grateful to Lewis for pointing out the mistake and said the new calculations change the probability of an increase in ocean temperatures to between 10 percent and 70 percent.
"Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean," Keeling said. "We really muffed the error margins."
Following the study's publication, Lewis wrote a blog post questioning its findings and reached out to lead author Laure Resplandy, a Princeton assistant professor, but never received a response.
"Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations," Lewis said.
Lewis discovered an error in the equation used to estimate a trend in ocean temperature. A correction led to an "ocean heat uptake estimate … well below the estimate in the paper."
"The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world's premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media," Lewis said. "Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results."
"Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper's findings now correct the record too," Lewis added. "But perhaps that is too much to hope for."
--------------------------------------
A little insight into
1) Fake science
2) Fake news
3) Failure to correct mistakes in reporting
And libtard nation uses this poppycock to blame climate change, yes that 2 billion years of climate change, and stuff like the CA wildfires on..... wait for it...... Republicans
Imagine blaming a political party for fires and snow and water and heat and cold and earthquakes and wind, they blame everything except mother nature and stuff like solar spots. The deniers don't know the earth's climate has been changing for 2 billion years, and thousands of those changes have been catastrophic for life on the planet. The deniers don't know there have been natural disasters like fires and floods and droughts and hurricanes since the beginning of recorded history, The deniers are so fucking stupid, they think they can stop climate change.
Who are the climate change deniers talking to? This is actually a rhetorical question
A highly circulated study claiming oceans are warming at a much higher rate due to global warming contains "key errors," forcing researchers to issue a correction.
The study published by the journal Nature on Oct. 31 by researchers at Princeton University and UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography claimed the oceans were warming at a rate 60 percent higher than previously thought.
However, a mathematical error discovered by independent climate scientist Nic Lewis after he perused the study's first page has led the journal to retract its key finding. The study has a much larger margin of error, making their findings of a 60 percent increase in ocean warming less precise, and actually between 10 percent and 70 percent.
The lead researcher now says its findings are practically meaningless, with a margin of error "too big now to really weigh in" on ocean temperatures.
When first published, the study led to "alarming" warnings in mainstream media outlets, claiming the "world has seriously underestimated the amount of heat soaked up by our oceans over the past 25 years."
CNN initially reported the planet is "‘more sensitive' than thought" based on the study and would lead to "more dire" predictions than the U.N.'s latest, which gave Earth only 12 more years.
CNN has since reported "errors were made" but is still defending the study claiming its scientific errors "do not invalidate the study's methodology."
The Washington Post is now reporting the scientists made "key errors."
"A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought," the paper reported. "But researchers now say they can't necessarily make that claim."
"Unfortunately, we made mistakes here," said Ralph Keeling, a Scripps researcher and coauthor of the study, adding the mathematical error means a "much larger margin of error in the findings."
Keeling told the San Diego Union Tribune he was grateful to Lewis for pointing out the mistake and said the new calculations change the probability of an increase in ocean temperatures to between 10 percent and 70 percent.
"Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean," Keeling said. "We really muffed the error margins."
Following the study's publication, Lewis wrote a blog post questioning its findings and reached out to lead author Laure Resplandy, a Princeton assistant professor, but never received a response.
"Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations," Lewis said.
Lewis discovered an error in the equation used to estimate a trend in ocean temperature. A correction led to an "ocean heat uptake estimate … well below the estimate in the paper."
"The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world's premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media," Lewis said. "Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results."
"Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper's findings now correct the record too," Lewis added. "But perhaps that is too much to hope for."
--------------------------------------
A little insight into
1) Fake science
2) Fake news
3) Failure to correct mistakes in reporting
And libtard nation uses this poppycock to blame climate change, yes that 2 billion years of climate change, and stuff like the CA wildfires on..... wait for it...... Republicans
Imagine blaming a political party for fires and snow and water and heat and cold and earthquakes and wind, they blame everything except mother nature and stuff like solar spots. The deniers don't know the earth's climate has been changing for 2 billion years, and thousands of those changes have been catastrophic for life on the planet. The deniers don't know there have been natural disasters like fires and floods and droughts and hurricanes since the beginning of recorded history, The deniers are so fucking stupid, they think they can stop climate change.
Who are the climate change deniers talking to? This is actually a rhetorical question
