It seems the left is up in a tizzy that President Donald J. Trump removed the US from the Paris Climate Accord. Of course, they’ll want all that money he saved the taxpayers to fund their socialist causes or help bail out the Academic Bubble that is about to burst, all in the name of science right? Yah sure.
Not long ago, I was arguing the case against global warming (by definition means that human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic atmospheric warming – basically that we are all going to die from the heat or drown from sea level rise) with a leftist academic with a PhD albeit 30-years old, even before the Internet. He told me that I was just an ignorant denier and paid off by Big Oil? I laughed, “nah, I care about the water I drink and the air I breathe just as much as the next guy, but the global warming data is completely flawed and the predictions are questionable, and the Paris Accord is ridiculous, it wouldn’t change anything anyway.”
He told me the reason I had flaws in my intellectual capacity was because I didn’t understand that all this is about “the rate of change” and he said that is the real challenge moving forward. Okay so, at this point I gave him a lecture, as I will now give to you.
Oh wow, you sound like Bill Nye “The Science Guy” – so tell us, what is the rate of change? No one knows, evidence suggests .8 degrees C over 50-years or something like that, but most would say .8 over that period could easily be a rounding error. What is the “rate of change” that you claim? You can’t answer that because much of this is based on temp data from multiple sources and attempts to force that data into alignment of the stated “Rate of Change” and when we look at the manipulated data from the NOAA, to the Hockey Stick hoax, to the modified algorithms or taking multiple computer models (future predictive models are not data) and throwing out the ones the IPCC doesn’t like calling it outside the range. Every time I look at this crap, I just laugh, you can’t call that crap data.
Garbage in – Garbage out.
Merging buoy temps with engine room ship readings, with only 17-years of satellite data (carefully adjusted not to piss off the IPCC agenda), NAVY ships with log books of old wooden sailing ships, hell, they would probably The Treasure Fleet of the Ming Dynasty if it served them, or not if it didn’t. One CANNOT conclude Jack from the temps and causality, especially when no one who looks at the data fairly can agree. For instance the Richard Muller’s study of the data and the hockey stick, these global warming alarmists have been caught, even changed the name of their theory to save face. It’s crap. Eisenhower warned us of runaway academic funding, just as he did with the Industrial Military Complex. “Rate of Change” what BS.
Ever study derivative math, write algorithms, or read books on data manipulation like: “The Craft of Political Research” by Shively, read some of his papers on the corruptness of political groups, which the IPCC is, because it is not a science group; “4 out of 5 dentists prefer Crest Toothpaste,” or 97% of Scientists believe that human emissions affect the climate? Well, No doogie doo Scoobie, everything affects everything else, but since CO2 is a trace gas and humans put forth about 4% of it 96% coming from nature, it’s just ridiculous to play the causality game as you have with a comment; “Since the Industrial Revolution” what the hell are they teaching the global warming alarmists in the University these days, that’s not science – that’s garbage. Think on this.