Read here. Since Earth has actually cooled in recent years, global warming alarmists have resorted to claiming that excess heat is being stored in the oceans, and that it will eventually reappear in a few decades, thus warming the world again. In essence, the alarmists are claiming that the heat is "hiding." Based on the real science though, "heat in the pipeline" is literally a bogus science concept.
Read here and here. Two things to remember: One, CO2 levels in the past were multiple times higher than current levels and they did not turn the oceans into "acid," nor kill ocean/sea life. Two, all the world's known fossil fuels could be burned and still not turn the oceans acidic. Additional C3 Headlines on this subject here.
Read here. Back in 2005, science thought they were rid of this vampire that was draining the credibility from the climate scientific body. So far this year though, the discredited 'hockey stick' methodologies have been revived in a string of studies including, Antarctica, hurricanes and most recently, Arctic temperature reconstructions. Until the peer-reviewed journals make a decision to turn from tabloid advocate science, the studies based on fraudulent techniques will still live.
Read here. Which species extinctions have occurred during last 50 years? Ever seen an actual list from a MSM journalist of all these extinctions? Neither have we, and none of us will. Totally bogus lies and fabrications from uber-biased (moronic?) reporters.
Read here. Here is the url for my browser's how page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random. Every time I open a new browser window, I get an entirely new Wikipedia article, usually about some issue or personality that is new to me, which I will quickly peruse. On topics concerning global warming or climate change though, Wikipedia is worthless, a joke.
Read here, here, and, here. A scientist who conjured up one of the most debunked pieces of paleo-climate science (the "hockey stick") in the last 100 years, has now applied his unique brand of data techniques and statistical methodologies to hurricanes. This scientist, btw, has no expertise or credibility regarding hurricanes or hurricane history. In contrast, a team of scientists associated with NOAA's hurricane center just released a major study that makes a mockery of Mann's study in hurricane ignorance. (click to enlarge) x
Synopsis: Using biofuels to replace fossil fuels actually increases CO2 emissions, just opposite of what politicians were told and believed.
Source here. "Biofuels for transportation (chiefly ethanol, biodiesel, and methanol) are being used in growing quantities in the belief that they provide environmental benefits. In fact, those benefits are very dubious. By some measures, “the net effect of biofuels production ... is to increase CO2 emissions for decades or centuries relative to the emissions caused by fossil fuel use.”"
Read here and here. "I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain." (Personally, based on the climate wackiness coming out of UK, I'm thinking they need to be more worried about whether mad cow disease is spread via air.)
Read here. Greens, leftists, bureaucrats, politicians, and of course, the MSM all love their scaremongering. As is proven time and time again, the alarmist hype of calamity never has solid basis in science. Is it time for class-action suits against public and private organizations that sensationalize bad/unproven science?
Ahhhh.....experts and their computer models....they don't only fail in the climate science realm. Conclusion: A worthless, non-scientific, black art that again shows its incompetence at accurate predictions of dynamic, complex systems.
Update: The recent swine flu outbreak is another example of failed computer models. Two different super-computer models predicted only some 2,000+ cases by end of May. Instead, the end of May numbers appear to be about "a few hundred thousand."
Read here and here. Are CO2 levels accelerating in atmosphere? Data does not suggest that at all, plus it was just recently announced that U.S. CO2 emissions fell by almost 3% due to recession. Most likely, other countries fell by even more due to worsening economic conditions. Predictions of CO2 "breakout" not living up to hype.
Read here. "Consensus" global warming science has been incredibly wrong about recent global changing climate conditions - embarrassingly wrong over the last 5 years. There are multiple reasons for this failure, but institionalized/authoritarian consensus is a primary cause.
Recently, a Phd. candidate in atmospheric sciences from Harvard states global warming scientists have a need(s) to "exaggerate" (lie) to achieve federal financing and gain those gullible politician's ears.
appears Harvard's science curriculum does not cover ethics, nor the
concept of cause and effect very well. For this young Phd., with the
malformed soul (the-ends-justify-the-means), here is what happens when scientists lie ("exaggerate"). And, on a more personal level, here is what can happen to the individual scientist. Be careful, exaggerate (lie) if you must, but there can be consequences - such as, it's highly unlikely you'll earn any consultant fees as an "expert witness" - it's kinda like no one believes you any more, eh.
(If you think this young scientist is unusual in her contempt for the public and scientific truth, please review similar comments about global warming from other scientists and prominent individuals.)
Readhere. Do science publications pushing hype & fear have an influence on politicians?
Over the past week, Obama has stated he fears"cataclysmic" hurricanesdue to global warming, which is so stunningly stupid it begs the question if Joe Biden really is his scientific advisor. In addition, his administration is now actually claiming that the natural substance we exhale, CO2, is "toxic," which has even the most even keeled of climate scientistsbesides themselves.
Although the global warming theory has been the favorite adopted theory of the political class, grant-seeking scientists and guilt ridden celebrities/journalists, it has not returned all the love bestowed on it by the reverent. Other than the period between the mid-70's and late 90's, the hypothetical human CO2 causation of global warming has meager observation evidence to support it. That being the case, the term "Global Warming Theory" has become an incorrect scientific description, no longer deserving the respect of 'theory' status.
Instead, based on the following widely accepted definitions, a simple review reveals it has become, at best, Global Warming Speculation, unsubstantiated by any real world data or proof. Unfortunately for the devoted, global warming can't even sustain a position of being a convincing hypothesis.
A speculation is a conjecture expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
A hypothesis is a proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts in a unified way. It generally forms the basis of experiments designed to establish its plausibility. Simplicity, elegance, and consistency with previously established hypotheses or laws are also major factors in determining the acceptance of a hypothesis.
A scientific law is a hypothesis that is assumed to be universally true. A law has good predictive power, allowing a scientist (or engineer) to model a physical system and predict what will happen under various conditions.
A theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions.
Global warming is not a theory; not a scientific law; and, no longer a hypothesis. Its relevance in the rational, scientific realm is tenuous, and as a UK judgerecently ruled, global warming belief is actually a religion. In addition, as the believers of global warming not only embrace, but proclaim profusely, at every opportunity, the belief of catastrophic, doomsday results caused by the hand of global warming, the terms religious beliefs or speculations have become that much more appropriate.