Your temperature chart is just flat out silly. Earth's temperature trend is toward warming. The fact that it doesn't take a straight line is NOT an argument. Plus, focusing on the outlier temperatures is not a valid form of analysis oriented to identifying trends.
Mindless identifies the blog as being personal politics, not science. Where do YOU think he found that chart of increasing or decreasing moisture?
Seems right to me. Mindlessly Blame CO2 warming for Increased Aridity! The truth: Studies of precipitation since 1998 found only 12% of the world has had any significant changes in precipitation. .(GRAPHIC I) Only 6% has resulted in increased aridity. Most of the detected increased aridity in California was caused by natural La Nina-like conditions during the research’s time period. FEMA, as indicated.
The data show that Earth is warming. What is "silly" is labeling each downward perturbation to be "cooling", rather than just recognizing that there are a significant number of cycles involved (nino, solar, etc.), and the result is that there will not be a straight line curve.
The issue is whether climate change is resulting in more fires. It's NOT about whether there are more fires on one side or the other of the Cascade Range.
Climate Alarmists Are Enemies of Science I tend to prefer to say that climate alarmists are motivated and supported by economic and political interests, not science. That is true of the scientists as well as those that are not but also seek money and power. I don't think they hurt science. They ignore it.
Climate Denialists Are Enemies of Science And tend toward conspiracy theory and pseudoscience to justify a partisan political stance.
Since you brought it up, it was Climate Alarmists who skirted proper Congressional authority necessary for EPA to be able to regulate the non-pollutant CO2 via Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA. Guess they weren't real confident they could convince enough people of their fraud to get it passed into law the normal way. And that's verifiable fact and not a mere "conspiracy theory".
Incorrect. It is the alarmists that benefit from the money and political power the "crisis" provides. "Deniers" gain nothing from it other than advancing the truth.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is what plants absorb to release oxygen. Without it, there would be no way to replenish the oxygen we burn to stay alive. People like you think it has something to do with the trivial 1 degree increase in global temperature over the past 100 years. Perhaps it does but it is still trivial. Get a grip.
Not even the EPA calls it a pollutant. Because that would be a lie. Want to offer up another one of your conspiracy theories?
I would like to thank you all for proving my point. CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas since 1859 and we have put 50% more of it into the atmosphere since then. A pollutant can be said to be a substance that harms the environment.
Then mankind itself can be a pollutant, right? After all, eliminating the surplus population is what "climate change" is all about, isn't it?
Who is we? "We" meaning people? Because that isn't accurate. Nature puts roughly 95-93% of CO2 back into the atmosphere, and is the only real agent of PPM movement over the last century and a half or so. I know, you didn't know that. I doubt you care. When you push knowingly incorrect and non factual data as fact, it surely crushes your credibility. CO2 is a requirement of life on this planet. H2O is the primary mover of climate change, has been always will be. But you can't make folks afraid of water, so you folks picked something innocuous that you thought no one else would understand, and here we are. So, if you harm the environment, you know, because you drive, are you willing to wear the yoke of being a pollutant?
You find humor in having having your misinformation corrected. Strange to me but continue laughing if it helps you.
