I would prefer incremental change brought about by research and supply/demand. No need to shit all over our economy, it is in the toilet already.
More global warming fail.
Prediction of slight decrease in crop production from 2000 to 2015:
Reality, more than 25% increase in crop production since 2000:
Fuck it, stupid internet. Do a google search of worldwide+crop+yields+by+year to see the graph. It show every class of crop skyrocketing in the last 15 years.
Their models don't even make good toilet papers. And we buy this shit? One would expect higher temps and higher levels of CO2 to increase productivity and objective evidence bears this out. THEY STILL HAVE THE CAJONES to tell us that it is hurting crop yields. White is black, 2+2=5, as long as they have a model, we fucking believe these prophets.
Yes they did change raw data. Here you can read all about it:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...owdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
Now why don't you follow the link in the news article to the published research in Science and then get back to us with your own analysis of their work. Please rely on facts when contrasting your work with theirs.
Once you can prove what they did is actually wrong then you can see about proving political manipulation.
Until then stop shoveling BS.
I was pouring over ice core data back in 2007. I spent a dozen hours researching just the Vostok ice core data. What I found is nothing short of breathtaking manipulation of data. It's the same story over and over. .
You can argue about what we should do about it all you want, but to deny AGW is to deny the consensus science.
Were you now? Certainly you must have all of this profound study documented? I would love to see it.
You should publish your work! I am sure it would be accepted to any of the peer reviewed scientific journals. You would be rich! Imagine all of the interviews.
You. Single handedly, outsmarting every other scientist on the planet. Imagine the book deals. They could make a movie!
Give me a fucking break lol.
This is the kind of BS that I'm talking about. YOU are shoveling BS. You think that you are going to "outfox" me by posting some BS link to some BS article and that's the end of it. OMG you so erudite. Sorry but it dont work that way. I HAVE actually read that article. What does the paper that this article is based on actually say:
The red line is before that paper was published, the black line is after. Do you understand what that graph is telling you? No, obviously not. What that graph is telling you is that this paper (Science aaa5632) is making extremely minor corrections that are irrelevant to the broader picture of climate change. Absolutely irrelevant. That paper isnt making the claim that there is now an uptrend where there previously wasnt one. That is pure lies, pure manipulation, pure BS. That article is complete misinformation, designed to feed nothing but idiocy. Check the facts yourself, do the actual research, instead of posting links to puerile articles which cite papers that you obviously have not read.
I was pouring over ice core data back in 2007. I spent a dozen hours researching just the Vostok ice core data. What I found is nothing short of breathtaking manipulation of data. It's the same story over and over. Notice how all these "corrections" are almost always tilted in one direction. That's right there tells any rational thinking person that there is a serious problem. But that's what they've been doing. Constantly making small corrections to the data, and almost always in one direction. Not always, but the money favors the studies which provide any "scientifically plausible" explanation for correcting the data. That is what all of this is about, it is a corruption of science. If there is a billion dollars waiting around to fund studies which can scientifically justify a method of correcting the data upwards, then the charts will trend upwards. Go look at the studies on smoking from 60 years ago. Dont talk about conspiracies. Go look at the studies, and understand what those studies are telling you vs what you now know with 100% certainty to be true about the effects of smoking. It is the same thing now with globull warming. It's not science that is the issue at all. It has nothing to do with science at all. You give me a billion dollars and I can come up with hundreds of perfectly valid scientific theories on how the temperature record could be altered upwards or downwards. And I could test them all, and simply throw out the research that doesnt fit the script and still have dozens that do, through nothing but sheer brute force. And most or even all would pass the peer review process. That is science! Science is not some magical ointment that cures all ailments. It cannot overcome large pools of money. That is what people need to come to terms with. A scientific mind can easily prove that you live longer if you smoke, and that unemployment is the same now as it was in 2007. But its not the truth, its just money talking.
So you read the first two sentences and reached the limit of your ability to conduct intellectual discourse? Can we go back a few steps just to clarify something: Do you deny that once upon a time, scientific concensus clearly favored the notion that smoking is beneficial to health? Or is it too much to ask that you answer one single question?
So time will tell, right?
The problem is that it's yelling, and it isn't getting any quieter. Do you think the consensus will be different in 25 years?
The scientists doing this work are far smarter than you or I in their respective fields. The truth will come out, I have no doubt about that.
Why haven't we seen 2 degrees warming the last 15 years? Or are you saying from some past point and not present temperature?We only need to release another ~500 gigatons of carbon to hit the 2C mark. That's ~15 years at our current rates.
So time will tell, right?
The problem is that it's yelling, and it isn't getting any quieter. Do you think the consensus will be different in 25 years?
The scientists doing this work are far smarter than you or I in their respective fields. The truth will come out, I have no doubt about that.
Crop yields are LITERALLY SCREAMING.... MORE Warming and MORE CO2 IS REAL FUCKING GREAT. What are you really scared of brah? Too much food? We are going to be just fine no matter how scary the prophets portray the future. And just so you know, the science is settled when the predictions are VALIDATED. By definition, that validation process will take at least a century. Before validation it might as well be from the Bible, it is just another fucking hypothesis.
I love how you disregard the manufacturers, political scientists and economists (far smarter in their field than you or I) when they warn of the cataclysmic effects of draconian carbon regulations on the Western world. They don't count I guess?
Proof that there is a "billion dollars waiting around to fund studies which can scientifically justify a method of correcting the data upwards"? Proof that grant money is provided for research that supports MMCC and denied for research that contradicts it? The truth is that the government provides funding regardless of the findings but there are plenty of companies willing to pay for any research that contradicts MMCC. So your assumptions are exactly backwards. If climate scientists were just in it for the money they would be better served doing research for the fossil fuel industry.This is the kind of BS that I'm talking about. YOU are shoveling BS. You think that you are going to "outfox" me by posting some BS link to some BS article and that's the end of it. OMG you so erudite. Sorry but it dont work that way. I HAVE actually read that article. What does the paper that this article is based on actually say:
The red line is before that paper was published, the black line is after. Do you understand what that graph is telling you? No, obviously not. What that graph is telling you is that this paper (Science aaa5632) is making extremely minor corrections that are irrelevant to the broader picture of climate change. Absolutely irrelevant. That paper isnt making the claim that there is now an uptrend where there previously wasnt one. That is pure lies, pure manipulation, pure BS. That article is complete misinformation, designed to feed nothing but idiocy. Check the facts yourself, do the actual research, instead of posting links to puerile articles which cite papers that you obviously have not read.
I was pouring over ice core data back in 2007. I spent a dozen hours researching just the Vostok ice core data. What I found is nothing short of breathtaking manipulation of data. It's the same story over and over. Notice how all these "corrections" are almost always tilted in one direction. That right there tells any rational thinking person that there is a serious problem. But that's what they've been doing. Constantly making small corrections to the data, and almost always in one direction. Not always, but the money favors the studies which provide any "scientifically plausible" explanation for correcting the data. That is what all of this is about, it is a corruption of science. If there is a billion dollars waiting around to fund studies which can scientifically justify a method of correcting the data upwards, then the charts will trend upwards. Go look at the studies on smoking from 60 years ago. Dont talk about conspiracies. Go look at the studies, and understand what those studies are telling you vs what you now know with 100% certainty to be true about the effects of smoking. It is the same thing now with globull warming. It's not science that is the issue at all. It has nothing to do with science at all. You give me a billion dollars and I can come up with hundreds of perfectly valid scientific theories on how the temperature record could be altered upwards or downwards. And I could test them all, and simply throw out the research that doesnt fit the script and still have dozens that do, through nothing but sheer brute force. And most or even all would pass the peer review process. That is science! Science is not some magical ointment that cures all ailments. It cannot overcome large pools of money. That is what people need to come to terms with. A scientific mind can easily prove that you live longer if you smoke, and that unemployment is the same now as it was in 2007. But its not the truth, its just money talking.
We only need to release another ~500 gigatons of carbon to hit the 2C mark. That's ~15 years at our current rates.
Your politicians have already committed billions of your dollars.Six years ago in Copenhagen, Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, brought the moribund negotiations on a deal to slow climate change back from the dead with a single promise of $100 billion a year to help the world’s poor nations.
The world’s advanced industrial nations committed to “mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year by 2020, to address the needs of developing countries.” The money was to come from “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.”
... But where’s the money?
A World Resources Institute report estimated that $10 billion to $14 billion in government money for climate finance on top of the $17 billion deployed in 2012 would be enough to seal a deal.
“There has to be additional concessional public climate finance,”...”
As for the United States... Pledging cash is not enough. Money must be appropriated.
So where was that supporting data showing our record crops are due to increased CO2 instead of more and improved farming?
The leaves of soybeans grown at the elevated carbon dioxide levels predicted for the year 2050 respire more than those grown under current atmospheric conditions, researchers report, a finding that will help fine-tune climate models and could point to increased crop yields as CO2 levels rise.
Remember when CO2 was going to kill off all the plankton? The "new problem" is that the opposite is happening.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ton-growth-how-this-harms-the-environment.htm
14 years 11 months now. Tick tock. Time for the next in the series of monthly scare threads.
Tick tock indeed.
You folks have any idea how long the CO2 being emitted right now will affect our biosphere?
You have 3 guesses.
I showed you THEIR prediction for the first 15 years of this century and they were way off. The missed very low. Their prediction was that total crop production would fall slightly and it skyrocketed. They are interested in only one thing and one thing alone. They don't give a shitstain about the truth.
What the 25% boost in crop production in the last 15 years does prove beyong ANY fucking doubt is: Globlal Warming and CO2 production do NOT harm crop production in any meaningful way AND in all likelihood help crop production. The global warming theorists have little to no interest into researching this particular issue because it completely demolishes their ability to fear-monger.
https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/206046