Gag order on the EPA

[Eric the Green]

(01-27-2017, 09:05 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 10:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 01:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-25-2017, 03:29 AM)Galen Wrote: Which is a sure sign that they don't know anything because the models are demonstrably wrong if this keeps happening.  This suggests that the real agenda is to scare people into giving the government power and money.  This is a very old story.

Which climate models are you referencing?  None that I've seen in the last 30 years.

Green oriented people need to face the fact that the models are just that. Modeling such a chaotic system where we are still learning the actual boundary conditions and relevant tensors is no easy task. It is going to be a work in process for some time to come. Then someone who has an agenda as opposed to a desire for pure science (shout out to Michael Mann and his "Real Climate" crew) comes along and plugs in bristlecone pine hygrometer-maybe treemometer cores, or other questionable proxies, and exaggerated depictions may occur. This is not to say warming is not occurring and is not to say the warming is not due to AGW. It is to say, exaggeration does no one any good. I can understand certain adherent's desire to get the attention of the masses and increase the urgency of mitigation actions, but the way the Hockey Team did it is wrong.

I doubt that those promoting doubt on this issue have any basis in fact. The "Hockey Stick" just refers to the fact that on a graph, the AGW shows up at the current time as a very sharp uptick compared to the slow changes in the past. It is based on fact. There is no exaggeration coming from research scientists. And it's not just one guy we can pin supposed exaggeration on; this is a community of climate scientists who all agree on these facts.

The "hockey stick" has never shown up in actual temperature measurements.  Back in 2000 when the Gore campaign was pushing it, the climate models showed a "hockey stick" starting in 2000.  Then for the next ten years actual temperatures, far from accelerating as the "hockey stick" predicted, decelerated and were flat for over a decade.  All along, the models were predicting a "hockey stick" starting in the year they were published in.  They still do, showing an acceleration at the "current time", as you say.  No "hockey stick" has ever shown up in the actual data, making all "hockey stick" predictions - which is most of the predictions - highly suspect.

Most of the theoreticians pushing climate models aren't scientists in the sense of people looking for the truth.  They're "scientists" in the sense of people trying to garner attention and funding by publishing apocalyptic predictions.

The hockey stick, as I explained, does not refer to temperatures in recent years compared to other recent years. It refers to the sudden increase in recent years (meaning the last 3 decades) compared to many thousands of years. The "stick" is a concentration of time at the right-end of a graph that spans many millennia.

As the graph David posted shows, global warming has accelerated in the last 3 years. Before 2000, 1998 was a sudden uptick year (which I predicted it to be in my book). Global warming skeptics and deniers put out this scam for several years that warming had stopped, because it had not changed as much since 2000. But that leaves out how much more warming had occurred before then, and how in the 2000s era it stabilized at this much higher level than before 1998. These deniers are people who can't read graphs.

Most "scientists" who are global warming skeptics are people paid for by the fossil fuels companies, or are libertarian-economics ideologues, or both. Climate scientists are people looking for the truth, and agree on AGW almost unanimously.

Burning fossil fuels causes a greenhouse effect. That has been known for over 100 years. Now we Americans choose to be blind and elect a "president" committed to deliberately cooking the planet for generations to come. Our only hope now to help stop it is blue states and cities and the appeal of clean energy in the market economy.