The National Climate Assessment - 2014 (NCA) is a
masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full
capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as
they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of
pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing
specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate
alarm. This is a rebuttal drafted by 14 independent meteorology and
climatology experts.
As independent scientists, we know that apparent
evidence of “Climate Change,” however scary, is not proof of anything.
Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence
repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid
to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate
Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists
call it today.
We are asked to believe that humans are drastically
changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with
their theory is very simple:
It is NOT true.
Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and
the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.
The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global
Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the
assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are
slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil
fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average
Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will
continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of
negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their
‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But
these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do
they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe
that their climate models are close to perfection.
This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where
we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show
each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial
scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if
valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because
each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of
the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether
true or not,
cannot
be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce
or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels
are completely nonsensical.
NCA CLAIM #1: “First ‘Line of Evidence’ (LoE) –
Fundamental Understanding of GH Gases”
Go to What's Up With That
for a step by step and real scientific examination. And
henceforth post this— http://tinyurl.com/lh2hw27— as
your comment to any and all further AGW gibberish .
Sheesh
Blaming climate change on humans is like blaming chickens for objects that fall from the sky.
ReplyDeleteBut, who better to teach this nonsense than Democrat politicians and their minions, the public school teachers?
.
For John Fwench Querie, the worst that could happen is that we will laugh at him, and he will disappear in humiliation.
ReplyDeleteLt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick
CO2 is such a small feature of atmospheric gases that it barely shows up on a pie chart. Nitrogen is 78%, Oxygen is almost 21% and CO2 is . . . . ready? . . . . 0.397% of the air envelope of the planet. It’s not even one HALF of one percent.
ReplyDeleteCheck out these other gases and their impact: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/greenhouse-gases-list.html
Also, by far the most influential of all features of the atmosphere contributing to greenhouse effect is water vapor – yes, clouds, mist, fog, and all that. Even methane is more effective as a heat blanket.
Sheeeesh!
What's the worst that can happen, you mendacious piece of shit!?
ReplyDeleteHow about industries would be shut down? How about careers ruined? How about a blow to the economies? How about children going hungry, of parents who would have jobs in the specific sectors that Climate Change seeks to curb? How about segments of society collapsing? How about ghost towns where industry was once thriving? How about depression, suicide, murder?
How about when you lied about your wounds in Vietnam/Cambodia whatever? How about your lies about atrocities in Vietnam that caused good soldiers who had given their all in Vietnam, and then some, to come home to a spitting public? How about the lives you've ruined by blindly signing onto any leftist legislation as Senator?
You MFCS kept man!
Two Clues:
ReplyDeleteConsensus Science
Settled Science
Absurdity Meter pegs; end of discussion.
e~C
"Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls. You're the boss. You can turn reality on its head and they'll cheer you on." Senator Roark - Sin City
ReplyDelete-Luigi
What's the worst that can happen?
ReplyDeleteAll the spending on combatting climate change crashes the entire world's economy and we're left scratching for berries and hunting rats. Is that bad enough for you?
What could go wrong? Well.... ask the millions that died after the pseudoscience of Trofim Lysenko: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
ReplyDeletePolitical science is no science at all.
The last Ice Age produced glaciers literally the size of Lake Michigan, pushing down as far as Chicago. And then it ended and all those glaciers melted. All this without any 'input' (output?) from human beings.
ReplyDeleteSo if something of that nature can happen all by itself, why are we worrying about mankind's puny contributions?