“The Pentagon says that climate change poses an increasing set of risks for global security.” — President Obama #ActOnClimate
“You know, like terrorists beating people to death with hockey stick graphs.”
“The Pentagon says that climate change poses an increasing set of risks for global security.” — President Obama #ActOnClimate
“You know, like terrorists beating people to death with hockey stick graphs.”
And you can trust that report form the Pentagon with as much trust I place in the Pentagon.
Well, Obama voters do commit more crimes in the summer, other than that, since most people who are a threat to the world live in places that are “warm” all year, I really don’t see what A has to do with B.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/
Definitely worth a read.
Jimmy: Excellent article — I read the summary on Freerepublic; but your link has the full in-depth text.
It would be useful to all if the climate alarmists could be pinned down and required to defend to one claim or another, since each claim can be refuted on its own merits, referring to the very terms and methodology they propose. But they can’t, because they argue a broad, overarching narrative in which facts are immaterial and, when shown to be false, jettisoned. They still think the ice-bound cruise to the Antarctic to show global warming proved their point perfectly.
The 22 inconvenient truths presented in this article are wonky physics points: they don’t include outright manipulations of data and “simply assumed” data (one global temperature data point to represent all of a vast region; none to represent Siberia?) which would push the number of Inconvenient Truths into the hundreds, if not thousands.
-It’s also circular reasoning starting from a possible false premise. Almost ever single one of these “Scenarios” that we should view with alarm are based upon the premise that the computer models that we use to predict the future are accurate and the “top end” increase possibility, with all it’s predictions of the collapse of the Earth, is the one that will come true. So yes, the Pentagon should be alarmed if the seas dry up, or rise up, or we have deserts growing in Manhattan BUT the premise they base these dire warnings upon may not be true and that’s the problem. You can’t use them to prove we need to be concerned about global warming because they are based only a a possible future, not necessarily the one that will occur.
Also:
When shown any graph by the climate modelers, ask what the margin of error is.
Don’t forget: Ask why they also conveniently forgot to include it on the graph.
(Standard scientific or statistical protocol)
I guarantee you will learn something.
(Aside: the .8 degrees Centigrade increase in temperature that they predict for the next century is below their models’ self-admitted margin of error.)