If it's important for your mental well-being to believe that so be it. The MMGW side has plenty of fairy tales of their own including everything from physics/engineering advances that don't yet exist, a remarkable inability to do honest cost-benefit analysis, willful blindness to simple real-life questions such as base-load power generation adequacy, and belief that others will simply live in poverty forever so to enable their war against fossil fuels.
Hope to gain? Keeping energy cheap and plentiful.
To slow down the rate of our change, to hold off the economic impacts of more expensive energy.
Ah, but even that doesn't fly. The costs of solar and wind power are falling quickly enough that they may be cheaper within a few years. That's one of the things that keeps me hopeful: as determined as Trump and the GOP are to hurt the planet in the name of money, technology and economies of scale may defeat them before long.
Hope to gain? Keeping energy cheap and plentiful.
To slow down the rate of our change, to hold off the economic impacts of more expensive energy.
"#Manhattanprojectforalternativeenergy"
That would be an amazing thing wouldn't it if we put aside our differences and find cheap abundant clean energy for everyone...hopefully one day we can all get our heads out of our collective ass's and do this."#Manhattanprojectforalternativeenergy"
Settled by whom? Pandering "scientists" virtue signaling group think?It isn't. Period. Science settled. Stop being willfully obdurate. Although I don't expect anything else.
No, it isn't.Settled by whom? Pandering "scientists" virtue signaling group think?
The data is trash.
hmmm your argument is both compelling and well thought out... Yea, fvck it, burn this mother down.Settled by whom? Pandering "scientists" virtue signaling group think?
The data is trash.
Office politics aside, the claims in the Mail on Sunday article that the Karl paper exaggerated the warming trend fall down when you examine any of the other surface temperature datasets. In a paper we recently covered, a team led by Berkeley researcher Zeke Hausfather compared the updated sea surface temperature dataset to shorter but simpler and independent sets of measurements made by satellites and automated floats. That analysis confirmed that the updated dataset is more accurate than its predecessor.
In a post for Carbon Brief, Hausfather noted that NOAA’s updated dataset doesn't cause it to show more warming than the datasets run by NASA, the Berkeley team, and the UK Met Office. Instead, the update caused NOAA to stop showing less warming than everyone else.
The House Science Committee’s Twitter account has yet to tweet a link to Hausfather's story.
Oh very interesting. Let's read the next three paragraphs:I found this and thought I would share (this is US only).
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.htmlDr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ''cast doubt'' on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth's surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.
Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980's are the highest on record.
Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.
Did you miss the part where I said this is US only?Oh very interesting. Let's read the next three paragraphs:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html
Yes, that's right. The scientist that led this study still believes in global warming. I do not understand why Americans are so fucking stupid that they do not understand that the world is larger than America.
AMERICA IS PART OF EARTH. GLOBAL WARMING. GLOBAL.Did you miss the part where is said this is US only?
If it's important for your mental well-being to believe that so be it. The MMGW side has plenty of fairy tales of their own including everything from physics/engineering advances that don't yet exist, a remarkable inability to do honest cost-benefit analysis, willful blindness to simple real-life questions such as base-load power generation adequacy, and belief that others will simply live in poverty forever so to enable their war against fossil fuels.
I could be wrong, but I think you guys are on the same page. He, and I am assuming here, is stating that the US version was manipulated to reflect that of current political messages. Don't forget, one of the very first things ronnie raygun did was to remove the solar panels on the whitehouse that Jimmy Carter put up there.AMERICA IS PART OF EARTH. GLOBAL WARMING. GLOBAL.
No shit Sherlock.AMERICA IS PART OF EARTH. GLOBAL WARMING. GLOBAL.
Another fifty years of "tobacco does not cause cancer!", "COUGH, HACK, COUGH!"
Settled by whom? Pandering "scientists" virtue signaling group think?
The data is trash.