The March for Science: Smart people......politically very dumb!!

[yiostheoy]

Eugenics is the Negro trend to slur their words.

It may very well be genetic.

Hard to say.

 

[yiostheoy]

Read the signs being carried, they know how to spell.

As opposed to tea baggers and drumpf supporters who believe their way of spelling is just as good as anyone else's because this is Amuhrca.

Has nothing to do with spelling.

It's all about BHO's attempts to stifle the coal industry.

At least DJ Trump sees through that part.

 

[yiostheoy]

As written by a man who will be marching................

"One source of today’s skepticism toward science as a political resource is the failure of mid-20th-century governments to deliver on the extravagant promises associated with the application of science to society."

"....................yet more and better data is hardly enough to ensure equality and justice. Societies employ science in accordance with their leading values, interests, and power structures. If March for Science participants want science to advance the causes of equality and justice, they will need to help create a society in which those values predominate"

How the March for Science Misunderstands Politics


Like Ive been saying for 15 years....the AGW folks need a Plan B or the science wont matter in the real world

Science IS skepticism, what IS the point of this thread? Scientist's aren't dictating morals or politics.

Well today these days Science is a major religion.

Science has replace the Greek Pantheon with Einstein, Hawking, and Oppenheimer as their gods.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think it is a bad idea to make a march for science about global warming....Sorry but medical science is far more popular! Bad hill to defend science on.

 

[yiostheoy]

Old Rocks: As for the models, you are totally wrong. Either you are a dumb fuck too damned lazy to do your own research, or you are another bald faced liar.

Me: Generally when somebody stops to this kind of vitriol it's a sure sign of a losing argument. Consider this, shortened somewhat to cut to the chase:

Global warming — temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.

The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature datasets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.

Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), analyzed all 73 UN computer models. “I compared the models with observations in the key area — the tropics — where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy told CNSNews. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.”

Using datasets of temperatures from NASA, the U.K. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia, NOAA, satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, he found, “All show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.” In other words, global warming has been on “pause” for almost two decades — a fact that has been acknowledged even by many of the most zealous UN climate alarmists. “All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world.”

Other warming predictions have also fallen flat. For instance, for almost two decades now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past.

The end of snow: The IPCC has also hyped snowless winters. In its 2001 report, it claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The latest data from Rutgers’ Global Snow Lab showed an all-time new record high in autumn snow cover across the northern hemisphere in 2014, when more than 22 million square kilometers were covered.

And according to data from the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center cited by meteorologist Mike Mogil, “U.S. snow cover on the morning of Dec. 1, 2015 is the highest on record for this day of the year.” In all, 38.7 percent of the United States was covered in snow, surpassing the previous record — 36.5 percent — set in 2006. Worldwide, similar trends have been observed. Global Snow Lab data also shows Eurasian autumn snow cover has grown by 50 percent since records began in 1979.

After their predictions were proven wrong, alarmists claimed global warming was actually to blame for the record cold and snow across America and beyond. Seriously. Among the “experts” making that argument was former cooling zealot Holdren, Obama’s science czar: “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.”

When asked for the “growing body of evidence” behind his assertions, Holdren’s office refused to provide it, claiming the ramblings were just his “opinion” and therefore not subject to transparency and accuracy laws. Still, Holdren’s claim directly contradicts the IPCC, which in 2001 predicted “warmer winters and fewer cold spells.”

The melting ice caps: Another area where the warmists’ predictions have proven incorrect concerns the amount of ice at the Earth’s poles. They predicted a complete melting of the Arctic ice cap in summers that should have already happened, and even claimed that Antarctic ice was melting rapidly.

As far as the Antarctic is concerned, in 2007, the UN IPCC claimed the ice sheets of Antarctica “are very likely shrinking,” with Antarctica “contributing 0.2 ± 0.35 mm yr - 1 to sea level rise over the period 1993 to 2003.” The UN also claimed there was “evidence” of “accelerated loss through 2005.” In 2013, the UN doubled down on its false claim, claiming even greater sea-level rises attributed to the melting in Antarctica: “The contribution of … Antarctic ice sheets has increased since the early 1990s, partly from increased outflow induced by warming of the immediately adjacent ocean.” It also claimed Antarctica’s “contribution to sea level rise likely increased from 0.08 [ - 0.10 to 0.27] mm yr - 1 for 1992 - 2001 to .40 [0.20 to 0.61] mm yr - 1 for 2002 - 2011.” The reality was exactly the opposite.

In a statement released in October (2015), NASA dropped the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on the UN’s climate-alarmism machine, noting that ice across Antarctica has been growing rapidly for decades.

NASA said only that its new study on Antarctic ice “challenges” the conclusions of the IPCC. In fact, the UN could not have been more wrong. Rather than melting ice in the southern hemisphere contributing to sea-level rise, as claimed by the UN, ice in Antarctica is expanding, and the growing ice is responsible for reducing sea levels by about 0.23 millimeters annually. According to the NASA study, published in the Journal of Glaciology, satellite data shows the Antarctic ice sheet featured a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 — more than a trillion tons of ice in less than a decade. Between 2003 and 2008, Antarctica gained some 82 billion tons of ice annually.

The UN’s inaccurate Antarctic claims were illustrated most comically, perhaps, when a ship full of alarmists seeking to study “global warming” was trapped in record Antarctic sea ice in the summer of 2013 and had to be rescued by ships burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. (Anybody remember that?)
.
.
Increased storms, drought, and sea-level rise: The ice sheets have not cooperated with warmists, and neither have other weather-related phenomena, such as mass migrations owing to sea-level rise.

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and none of those things actually happened. But that didn’t stop the warnings.

In 2005, the UNEP warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by AGW would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be producing the most “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing those areas. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

Even the low-lying Pacific islands scare appears to have flopped. Supposedly on the “front lines” of AGW-caused sea-level rise, the Pacific atoll island nations don’t face imminent submersion and have experienced the opposite of what was predicted. Consider a paper published in March of 2015 in the journal Geology. According to the study, the Funafuti Atoll has experienced among “the highest rates of sea-level rise” in the world over the past six decades. Yet, rather than sinking under the waves, the islands are growing. “No islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century,” the paper says.

Then there are the claims about drought. Some UN alarmists have even predicted that Americans would become “climate refugees,” using imagery that may be familiar to those who suffered through the infamous (and natural) “Dust Bowl” drought of the 1930s. Prominent Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, for instance, made some dramatic predictions in 1990. By 1995, he said, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

When confronted on his predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as Gore’s advisor, refused to apologize. “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he claimed. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”

Unfortunately for Oppenheimer, even his fellow alarmists debunked that claim in a 2012 study for Nature, pointing out that there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.”

Countless other claims of AGW doom affecting humans have also been debunked. Wildfires produced by AGW, for instance, were supposed to be raging around the world. Yet, as Forbes magazine pointed out recently, the number of wildfires has plummeted 15 percent since 1950, and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue for decades. On hurricanes and tornadoes, which alarmists assured were going to get more extreme and more frequent, it probably would have been hard for “experts” to be more wrong. “When the 2014 hurricane season starts it will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S. intense hurricanes since 1900,” noted professor of environmental studies Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado. On January 8, 2015, meanwhile, the Weather Channel reported: “In the last three years, there have never been fewer tornadoes in the United States since record-keeping began in 1950.”


Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything

As for you Old Rocks, if you can't be civil then this discourse is over from my end. Have a nice day.

Gawddam rant.

Onto the iggy list you go.

 

[yiostheoy]

View attachment 122788

Gonads do describe gender.

Love them or leave them.

 

[yiostheoy]

Sometimes being right is more important then being liked...Politics is all about kissing ass, while science is about the real.

You're nothing more then an ass kisser Skooks.

Could not be more wrong..........and proves again how incredibly naïve you are s0n.

This is Matthew that you are addressing. Yes, he certainly can be more wrong, and in fact, has been more wrong. It is an error to underestimate the depths of wrongness to which he is capable, or to look at one instance of him being wrong, and assume that to be the limit of how wrong he can be.

OK, now you tell us what you think of AGW, and we can see how right you can be. I bet you will do nothing but reveal a vast ignorance of the whole subject and science in general.

Ok ...

Accelerated Global Warming ???

 

[PK1]

I do not believe that science ought to be in the business of advancing the causes of equality and justice, IMHO we've already got too many scientists doing that already at the expense of honest and unbiased research and reporting. Science ought to be all about truth and integrity, if you're going to be looking into something like GW then it should be with no preconceived political agenda. You should not change the parameters or the process to achieve a desired result, and I fear that is happening all too often.

Given the level of scientific stupidity in this nation now, scientists should lobby for more scientific education ... like other intelligent people.

 

[IsaacNewton]

As written by a man who will be marching................

"One source of today’s skepticism toward science as a political resource is the failure of mid-20th-century governments to deliver on the extravagant promises associated with the application of science to society."

"....................yet more and better data is hardly enough to ensure equality and justice. Societies employ science in accordance with their leading values, interests, and power structures. If March for Science participants want science to advance the causes of equality and justice, they will need to help create a society in which those values predominate"

How the March for Science Misunderstands Politics


Like Ive been saying for 15 years....the AGW folks need a Plan B or the science wont matter in the real world

Science IS skepticism, what IS the point of this thread? Scientist's aren't dictating morals or politics.

Well today these days Science is a major religion.

Science has replace the Greek Pantheon with Einstein, Hawking, and Oppenheimer as their gods.

Another of the big conservative lies. Science can't be a religion. Religion is the belief in a supernatural being or god.

Science is the revealing of natural processes through repeatable experimentation. Cons have glommed onto the big lie as one of their favorite fake tools. Couching everything as a false equivalency is another. This is why in fact they attempt to degrade science by claiming it is no more believable than religion. The truth is the exact opposite.

Ever since the fake 'intelligent design' bullshit didn't work the right wing has been busy coming up with another strawman phoney argument. It won't work, reality isn't subject to review by people who believe in rubbing a magic lamp to ask the Ginn for favors.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Potential effects

This and your failed modeling will get you shit on your face...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sometimes being right is more important then being liked...Politics is all about kissing ass, while science is about the real.

You're nothing more then an ass kisser Skooks.

Could not be more wrong..........and proves again how incredibly naïve you are s0n.

This is Matthew that you are addressing. Yes, he certainly can be more wrong, and in fact, has been more wrong. It is an error to underestimate the depths of wrongness to which he is capable, or to look at one instance of him being wrong, and assume that to be the limit of how wrong he can be.

OK, now you tell us what you think of AGW, and we can see how right you can be. I bet you will do nothing but reveal a vast ignorance of the whole subject and science in general.

Ok ...

Accelerated Global Warming ???

As their models fail with greater and greater divergence from reality, it some how becomes more certain and faster... Maybe if they scream at the top of their lungs no one will notice they are lying..

 

[task0778]

To piggyback on Billy_Bob's excellent post above that shows the wide divergence between what the models predicted and the subsequent reality. Below is a link to an essay from the Hoover Institution on flawed computer models vis-a-vis global warming. It's not the whole thing, just the last part:

Climate Model Errors

Before we put too much credence in any climate model, we need to assess its predictions. The following points highlight some of the difficulties of current models.

Vancouver, British Columbia, warmed by a full degree in the first 20 years of the 20th century, then cooled by two degrees over the next 40 years, and then warmed to the end the century, ending almost where it started. None of the six climate models tested by the IPCC reproduced this pattern. Further, according to scientist Patrick Frank in a 2015 article in Energy & Environment, the projected temperature trends of the models, which all employed the same theories and historical data, were as far apart as 2.5˚C.

According to a 2002 article by climate scientists Vitaly Semenov and Lennart Bengtsson in Climate Dynamics, climate models have done a poor job of matching known global rainfall totals and patterns.

Climate models have been subjected to “perfect model tests,” in which the they were used to project a reference climate and then, with some minor tweaks to initial conditions, recreate temperatures in that same reference climate. This is basically asking a model to do the same thing twice, a task for which it should be ideally suited. In these tests, Frank found, the results in the first year correlated very well between the two runs, but years 2-9 showed such poor correlation that the results could have been random. Failing a perfect model test shows that the results aren’t stable and suggests a fundamental inability of the models to predict the climate.

The ultimate test for a climate model is the accuracy of its predictions. But the models predicted that there would be much greater warming between 1998 and 2014 than actually happened. If the models were doing a good job, their predictions would cluster symmetrically around the actual measured temperatures. That was not the case here; a mere 2.4 percent of the predictions undershot actual temperatures and 97.6 percent overshot, according to Cato Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels, former MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, and Cato Institute climate researcher Chip Knappenberger. Climate models as a group have been “running hot,” predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred over 1998–2014. Of course, this doesn’t mean that no warming is occurring, but, rather, that the models’ forecasts were exaggerated.

Conclusions

If someone with a hand-held stopwatch tells you that a runner cut his time by 0.00005 seconds, you should be skeptical. If someone with a climate model tells you that a 0.036 Wm–2 CO2 signal can be detected within an environment of 150 Wm–2 error, you should be just as skeptical.

As Willie Soon and his coauthors found, “Our current lack of understanding of the Earth’s climate system does not allow us to determine reliably the magnitude of climate change that will be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, let alone whether this change will be for better or for worse.”

Flawed Climate Models

Me: look, if you want me to support spending huge amounts of money you're going to have to convince me of 2 things: 1) does the future problem really exist and is it as bad as you say, and 2) will your solution fix the problem. So far, nobody has come close to providing a compelling case in either question.

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocks: As for the models, you are totally wrong. Either you are a dumb fuck too damned lazy to do your own research, or you are another bald faced liar.

Me: Generally when somebody stops to this kind of vitriol it's a sure sign of a losing argument. Consider this, shortened somewhat to cut to the chase:

Global warming — temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.

The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature datasets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.

Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), analyzed all 73 UN computer models. “I compared the models with observations in the key area — the tropics — where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy told CNSNews. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.”

Using datasets of temperatures from NASA, the U.K. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia, NOAA, satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, he found, “All show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.” In other words, global warming has been on “pause” for almost two decades — a fact that has been acknowledged even by many of the most zealous UN climate alarmists. “All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world.”

Other warming predictions have also fallen flat. For instance, for almost two decades now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past.

The end of snow: The IPCC has also hyped snowless winters. In its 2001 report, it claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The latest data from Rutgers’ Global Snow Lab showed an all-time new record high in autumn snow cover across the northern hemisphere in 2014, when more than 22 million square kilometers were covered.

And according to data from the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center cited by meteorologist Mike Mogil, “U.S. snow cover on the morning of Dec. 1, 2015 is the highest on record for this day of the year.” In all, 38.7 percent of the United States was covered in snow, surpassing the previous record — 36.5 percent — set in 2006. Worldwide, similar trends have been observed. Global Snow Lab data also shows Eurasian autumn snow cover has grown by 50 percent since records began in 1979.

After their predictions were proven wrong, alarmists claimed global warming was actually to blame for the record cold and snow across America and beyond. Seriously. Among the “experts” making that argument was former cooling zealot Holdren, Obama’s science czar: “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.”

When asked for the “growing body of evidence” behind his assertions, Holdren’s office refused to provide it, claiming the ramblings were just his “opinion” and therefore not subject to transparency and accuracy laws. Still, Holdren’s claim directly contradicts the IPCC, which in 2001 predicted “warmer winters and fewer cold spells.”

The melting ice caps: Another area where the warmists’ predictions have proven incorrect concerns the amount of ice at the Earth’s poles. They predicted a complete melting of the Arctic ice cap in summers that should have already happened, and even claimed that Antarctic ice was melting rapidly.

As far as the Antarctic is concerned, in 2007, the UN IPCC claimed the ice sheets of Antarctica “are very likely shrinking,” with Antarctica “contributing 0.2 ± 0.35 mm yr - 1 to sea level rise over the period 1993 to 2003.” The UN also claimed there was “evidence” of “accelerated loss through 2005.” In 2013, the UN doubled down on its false claim, claiming even greater sea-level rises attributed to the melting in Antarctica: “The contribution of … Antarctic ice sheets has increased since the early 1990s, partly from increased outflow induced by warming of the immediately adjacent ocean.” It also claimed Antarctica’s “contribution to sea level rise likely increased from 0.08 [ - 0.10 to 0.27] mm yr - 1 for 1992 - 2001 to .40 [0.20 to 0.61] mm yr - 1 for 2002 - 2011.” The reality was exactly the opposite.

In a statement released in October (2015), NASA dropped the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on the UN’s climate-alarmism machine, noting that ice across Antarctica has been growing rapidly for decades.

NASA said only that its new study on Antarctic ice “challenges” the conclusions of the IPCC. In fact, the UN could not have been more wrong. Rather than melting ice in the southern hemisphere contributing to sea-level rise, as claimed by the UN, ice in Antarctica is expanding, and the growing ice is responsible for reducing sea levels by about 0.23 millimeters annually. According to the NASA study, published in the Journal of Glaciology, satellite data shows the Antarctic ice sheet featured a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 — more than a trillion tons of ice in less than a decade. Between 2003 and 2008, Antarctica gained some 82 billion tons of ice annually.

The UN’s inaccurate Antarctic claims were illustrated most comically, perhaps, when a ship full of alarmists seeking to study “global warming” was trapped in record Antarctic sea ice in the summer of 2013 and had to be rescued by ships burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. (Anybody remember that?)
.
.
Increased storms, drought, and sea-level rise: The ice sheets have not cooperated with warmists, and neither have other weather-related phenomena, such as mass migrations owing to sea-level rise.

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and none of those things actually happened. But that didn’t stop the warnings.

In 2005, the UNEP warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by AGW would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be producing the most “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing those areas. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

Even the low-lying Pacific islands scare appears to have flopped. Supposedly on the “front lines” of AGW-caused sea-level rise, the Pacific atoll island nations don’t face imminent submersion and have experienced the opposite of what was predicted. Consider a paper published in March of 2015 in the journal Geology. According to the study, the Funafuti Atoll has experienced among “the highest rates of sea-level rise” in the world over the past six decades. Yet, rather than sinking under the waves, the islands are growing. “No islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century,” the paper says.

Then there are the claims about drought. Some UN alarmists have even predicted that Americans would become “climate refugees,” using imagery that may be familiar to those who suffered through the infamous (and natural) “Dust Bowl” drought of the 1930s. Prominent Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, for instance, made some dramatic predictions in 1990. By 1995, he said, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” The situation would get so bad that “Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

When confronted on his predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as Gore’s advisor, refused to apologize. “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he claimed. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”

Unfortunately for Oppenheimer, even his fellow alarmists debunked that claim in a 2012 study for Nature, pointing out that there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.”

Countless other claims of AGW doom affecting humans have also been debunked. Wildfires produced by AGW, for instance, were supposed to be raging around the world. Yet, as Forbes magazine pointed out recently, the number of wildfires has plummeted 15 percent since 1950, and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue for decades. On hurricanes and tornadoes, which alarmists assured were going to get more extreme and more frequent, it probably would have been hard for “experts” to be more wrong. “When the 2014 hurricane season starts it will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S. intense hurricanes since 1900,” noted professor of environmental studies Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado. On January 8, 2015, meanwhile, the Weather Channel reported: “In the last three years, there have never been fewer tornadoes in the United States since record-keeping began in 1950.”


Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything

As for you Old Rocks, if you can't be civil then this discourse is over from my end. Have a nice day.

I have no reason to be civil with liars and charlatans. And by Cristy's and Spencer's own site shows a great deal of warming since 1979, let alone 1966;

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Image 4 of 4 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey !!! Can we stick with the ORIGINAL topic here and not re-hash the whole GW/CC thing in EVERY THREAD? There's more to science and the environment than CO2. And there is plenty to talk about when it comes to WHAT and WHO directs science and R&D in this country.

Folks are certainly welcome to create new GW/CC threads. Just don't turn EVERY Enviro issue into the same old standoff..

 

[Old Rocks]

As written by a man who will be marching................

"One source of today’s skepticism toward science as a political resource is the failure of mid-20th-century governments to deliver on the extravagant promises associated with the application of science to society."

"....................yet more and better data is hardly enough to ensure equality and justice. Societies employ science in accordance with their leading values, interests, and power structures. If March for Science participants want science to advance the causes of equality and justice, they will need to help create a society in which those values predominate"

How the March for Science Misunderstands Politics


Like Ive been saying for 15 years....the AGW folks need a Plan B or the science wont matter in the real world

Science IS skepticism, what IS the point of this thread? Scientist's aren't dictating morals or politics.

Well today these days Science is a major religion.

Science has replace the Greek Pantheon with Einstein, Hawking, and Oppenheimer as their gods.

Since you failed to mention Euler, that leads me to believe you know little of science.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is serious stuff. After I almost laughed myself sick this morning hearing that Earth Day had morphed into a "March for Science" political rally, I tuned into CSPAN to watch this oddity for 1/2 an hour. I literally hurt myself laughing over the concept of marching for science. Since I don't think I've ever seen science progress by virtue of physical exertion..

APPARENTLY -- some lukewarm jazzy soulfull music and 40 second speeches that are highly politically charged is suddenly ESSENTIAL to having a healthy vibrant R&D friendly, sciency type country.. Could only take 1/2 hour of the slogans, politics, and misrepresentations that were getting tossed out by the speakers.

Better concept would have been to take the small audience out of the rain and force them to watch 2 hours of Ted Talks. That would have "promoted science" farther than anything that I saw happening.

 

[Sbiker]

As written by a man who will be marching................

"One source of today’s skepticism toward science as a political resource is the failure of mid-20th-century governments to deliver on the extravagant promises associated with the application of science to society."

"....................yet more and better data is hardly enough to ensure equality and justice. Societies employ science in accordance with their leading values, interests, and power structures. If March for Science participants want science to advance the causes of equality and justice, they will need to help create a society in which those values predominate"

How the March for Science Misunderstands Politics


Like Ive been saying for 15 years....the AGW folks need a Plan B or the science wont matter in the real world

Science as process - is a serious concentration at subject of learning. There are a lot of differences between political scientists, who learning society and really can rule the country (btw, like Lenin) and, for example, physicians, which could make a great Hydrohen bomb (like Sakharov), but speaking a full nonsense in politic questions (repeating myths and ideology after his anti-soviet wife)...

 

[Old Rocks]

Given the present admin's intention of closing down most science in the US, and very anti-science attitude, this kind of protest is essential to remind the other politicians that scientists are also constituents.

 

[skookerasbil]

Any reasonable person can see how unhinged the alarmist board members are. As I pointed on in the first post, the article was written by a guy attending the march but disappointed that the climate change folks still haven't gotten a handle on the politics after 25 years. And as you can see on this thread........they still post up science links as if they are material to the discussion. IDK.....that's some scary shit right there. That's like making a comment during a discussion about a womans boobs, "Does she drive an EV?"

Oh.....and I saw a few posts talking about political impacts at election time!! We hear this all the time from a handful of alarmists in this forum = how climate change is the most major issue of our time. Well......the fact of the matter is, nobody is caring in 2017 and wont next year or in 2020 either. Just a few months ago, we had 3 presidential debates and climate change didn't come up even a once!!! And out of a list of 20 voter concerns, every single poll ( Pew/Gallup/Rasmussen ) shows that global warming always comes in dead last or next to last.

Here is one from last year heading into the election...........

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-priorities_1.jpg.html'][/URL]



Now really folks...........how silly do the AGW climate alarmists look saying elections will be decided by climate change?? I mean c'mon.........do these people have both feet planted firmly on the ground?



[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor11_2.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/gigantor11_2.gif[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor11_2.gif.html'][/URL][/URL]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Given the present admin's intention of closing down most science in the US, and very anti-science attitude, this kind of protest is essential to remind the other politicians that scientists are also constituents.

Closing down politically driven pseudoscience is the objective.. Since you espouse it and love it, you hate that it is happening.. At least be honest with yourself..