Why the AGW Science is Irrelevant

Holy cow. This is just flat out denial. Congress can pass a law directing any agency in how it spends its budget. They did it with the CDC

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. We have evidence on AGW theory.

 

Show me the legislation that was passed that provides funds for NASA Muslim out reach, specifically.

 

How can you be so obtuse? They allowed the president to direct those funds. This is hilarious.

 

Pretty hilarious that you now back up but I have been saying all along. Evidently you don't understand the separation of powers.

 

You are being intentionally obtuse. How did congress get the CDC to stop funding gun violence if congress can't TOUCH their budget? LOL

 

Right: evidence that it is false, not least the constant alteration of data to fit the theory.

 

Oh.....you are in the international conspiracy of the greatest scientific minds on the planet camp. Got it

 

The budget allocates monies to branches of gov and the executive branch decides how to spend it on specific programs. The legislative branch can include hard ear marks to make sure that certain projects are funded. If the legislature does not provide hard ear marks the executive branch allocates the money at their discretion - in this case to entities like universities or the IPSS which produce "science" which looks only at AGW and the damages of AGW without considering the other climate drivers or the benefits of global warming. That's the way it works. It's clear just who is in denial.

 

Look up the Dickey amendment. Congress can make a law directing and agency how to spend its money

 

In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[

 

So what ?? Is there any such amendment with regards to global warming ??

 

You can't be this thick. Congress can direct the funds of any agency in the country

 

Again so what ?? Congress has been using earmarks for decades.

 

That you are unaware of what is going on in climate science is not everyone's else's problem.

 

The thing is that what you've labeled as "verifiable" is simply others who assert without actual verifiable data. We still don't have a formula that tells us X amount of CO2 equals Y degrees of warming, do we? You simply believe that the inference that they might make is demonstrable. It, unfortunately, is not.

And that's the difference. You have faith in this and are willing to suspend rational analysis in support of your faith. We get it.

 

You must be very new to science. We don't have a formula that says X amount of cigarettes equals lung cancer. But we still recommend you don't smoke. This is called the denier tactic of unrealistic expectations.

 

So why is it that when CO2 is held constant in the computer models the result is less temperature change than if CO2 is accumulated at the current rate? That seems like a demonstrable effect to me.

 

No, the smallest. The greatest are skeptics. And the international "conspiracy" -- "cabal" might be a better term -- clearly exists, as proved by the Climategate emails.

- - - Updated - - -

No one denies CO2 has an effect. The question is, does it have as great an effect as the AGW models claim? The EMPIRICAL evidence suggests it does not.

 

You don't have to go far to prove this statement wrong. There are people in this very thread who deny that CO2 has an effect.

There is no such thing as an "AGW model". There are only 'Climate Models'.

Climate Modeling 101

 

The greatest are skeptics? Want to back that up? LOL

 

It's called math. That does not mean that it reacts the same way in a chaotic non-linear coupled climate that cannot be modeled. Yes, the climate cannot be modeled due to known unknowns and the limitations of computer power.

 

I understand that. That's why models are actually ran as ensembles of perturbed members. It's not the deterministic result of any one member that's important. It's the statistically significant signal from the aggregate of all members that matters. I do agree that climate cannot be modeled perfectly, but it can be modeled with sufficient skill to be useful.

 

Useful for modeling but not for policy.

 

Why do the models show a consistent trend of increasing global average temperature with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration ?? The historical temperature data shows increasing, decreasing, and steady global average temperature with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Models are not useful for setting policy resulting in adverse economic consequences which harm the poor regressively.

 

the letters AGW should never precede the word science

I could easily write a model which showed a direct correlation between hamburgers consumed in the US and temperature but garbage in = garbage out. Climate modeling is the biggest computer farce since the Y2K fiasco