Translate

Picture 2

Picture 2
Based on solid evidence, CIA has high confidence Russian hacks were intended to help Trump win.

Apr 7, 2014

My High Hopes For Global Warming Have Been Crushed

I had such high hopes for Global Warming.  I expected to be much more comfortable in Chicago winters as our climate warmed up.  However, there is a 35 foot high pile of snow stretching about 100 feet along the south side of the parking lot where I work.  It was so cold and snowy that I sent out an email to my co-workers from Mumbai explaining how to layer up to keep warm.  It seems to me that the fallacy of using 150 years worth of solid temperature data, and proxy data to estimate earlier temperatures, has become obvious to a lot of people.  If you are trying to understand how temperatures vary over tens of thousands of years, you need a lot more solid data.  Further, it looks to me like these models try to explain everything using only atmospheric conditions.  Don't you think the variability of the Sun's energy output might be a major part of any explanation?  Finally, I'm old enough to remember the global cooling scare of the 1970's.  It seems like politics are decisive in the formulation of climate models that justify more concentrated government power. The grant seeking scientists can't even get straight which way temperatures are going to move.  The only thing they consistently agree on is that the climate situation is dire and they need more government money to investigate. 

Wouldn't it be fun if Republicans promised, " If you like your climate change, you can keep your climate change, period.".

Does Man Made Global Warming Ignore Science?

Here's a little test for liberals who consider Human Caused Global Warming is "settled science."  It helps identify who's really denying scientific findings.  Do you deny that the Earth went through periodic ice ages followed by warming periods before man evolved? Do you deny that using 135 years of solid temperature measurements to predict climate changes that take place over thousands or millions of years is statistically absurd? Do you deny the worst ice age occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator? Do you deny that global warming occurred to end that ice age 630 million years ago and that man had not evolved yet? Do you deny that there was a Medieval Warm Period from about 850 AD to 1250 AD? Do you deny that human activity was not responsible for the the Medieval Warm Period? Do you deny that the Medieval Warm Period was followed by a Little Ice Age from about 1350 AD to 1800 AD? Do you deny that your liberal education left you ignorant of all of these events?   Liberals, face facts.  You are denying a lot more science than you even knew existed to believe the climate alarmists who basically created a doomsday cult to gain more government funded research grants.  

Intellectual Roller Derby

I think “the debate is over” is really the intellectual equivalent of roller derby.  In roller derby, the leading skater can halt play by putting their hands on their hips.  Of course they do this only when it benefits their team.  So saying “the debate is over” is the equivalent of saying that the liberals will be in a much worse position if the debate continues.