Why the AGW Science is Irrelevant

So, the first qualification for anyone studying climatology is for them to believe that the vast majority of scientists are wrong?

 

What about this scientist?

[video=youtube;CvnmSRghdow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnmSRghdow[/video]

 

Sorry, but Rahmstorf isn't the majority of scientists.

 

Drought has occurred in both places many times. This is just natural variation. Rainfall patterns shift; the variation always means drought in a few places, floods in a few places. Next time the drought will be somewhere else, and the Central Valley and Syria might even get flooding. There's a large area of the Canadian prairies that is much wetter than normal, and has been for years. Other parts are drier than normal, and have been for years. Climate changes, the rains move around. So the most reasonable approach would be to build large-scale hydrological projects so water can be moved to where it's most needed, no matter where it happens to be falling. And the resulting reservoirs would help reduce sea level increase.

 

Sea Level's have risen 400 feet in 20,000 years, that an average rate of rise of 0.25 inches per year, for 20,000 years. Your link, and thank you for providing it, describes it as "stunning" that over the last century the average rate of rise has been 0.05" per year. Is "stunning" really the correct term for a century long rate of rise that is 1/5th the rate of the average rise over the last 200 centuries? That's a lot closer to "nothing" than it is to the rate over that last 200 centuries.

 

See, that is just the sort of solution fought against by Democrats in America. If it moves, tax it. If it needs to be built, block it and pass laws to stop it. Why is Keystone and the Dakota line blocked? Democrats is the reason.

 

No, the first qualification for a scientist is that he have an open mind and be willing to listen to and respond to critical review. An AGW advocate fails that qualification.

 

So most the the greatest scientific minds in the world fail in that regard? Lol

 

The first qualification for a scientist is to follow the scientific method. The gov is not paying for compliance with the scientific method. They are paying for scientific papers which fit the AGW alarmist agenda. It's a lucrative business.

 

They are well paid to publish papers which advance the AGW narrative. The best examples of this are MBH98 and MBH99, aka the hockey stick papers which got rid of the MWP and LIA which was needed to show that the current warming is unprecedented in the last 1000 years. Those papers have been completely discredited and the hockey stick has disappeared from the IPCC logo.

 

Trump will change his mind.. Daughter Ivanka is a proponent of Global Warming.

 

I don't think so when it comes to the EPA regulations and any other considerations that would reduce economic growth and jobs (specifically the coal and other fossil fuel industries). Trump's closest advisers are all global warming realists. It was definitely surprising that she met with Al Gore however.

 

Again, I don't expect you to understand the difference between correlation and evidence of causality. I do expect that NASA know better, and they do. And yet, you cite their own unwillingness to read the cite that you provide. Even NASA don't claim there is actually causality, only linkage.

I know my food is safe because I buy it and source it locally. There is no "consensus" involved. But I understand your dependence on that construct.

 

No, the greatest scientific minds solidly meet that qualification. Its AGW proponents who fail to meet it.

 

Actually the greatest scientific minds are in support of AGW. Many nobel laureates have signed a statement in support of the theory.

- - - Updated - - -

You are free to ignore the evidence if you wish. NASA obviously strongly supports AGW theory. They don't have a huuuuuuge brain like youi though. LOL

 

You mean evidence that is computer generated with data inserted to the scientist computers by scientist receiving AGW grants? The same scientist that said we were heading into an ice age just 30 years ago? It's a money grab, nothing more.

 

What is an AGW grant? The GOP led congress has controlled every dollar the US spends for the last couple of years....are they in on this too? LOL

 

The administration administers it.

 

Only by consent of congress. Congress can entirely direct how every penny is spent if it wants

 

My mistake I meant MMGW grants.http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
You're sadly mistaken if you think I agree with the GOP Congress, they haven't stopped Obama on anything budget related, in fact they've approved of everything Obama's wanted. Sure they moaned a bit but in the end Obama won out. No love lost there.

 

I am sure the Congress approved of NASA Muslim Outreach right?

 

So, I'll simply say this. There is a difference between what the public and political position of NASA are, and what their science can demonstrate. Yes, NASA agency believe that their willingness to engage in the sophistry that is AGW gets them a larger portion of the federal funding pie, but it doesn't mitigate their inability to scientifically demonstrate AGW. To put a fine point on it, they haven't. But I assure you they are more than willing as an agency to entertain any way they can augment their funding by making sure that folks like you continue to perceive that they are "working on it"... In a way, it's laughable. In another, it's very sad.

 

So the GOP congress is in on this conspiracy? Wow it gets bigger every day. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

They have the full and complete authority to end it at any time. Do you doubt this?

- - - Updated - - -

Gets them a larger piece if the federal pie from whom? The GOP congress? That is who funds them.

 

Not aware of the separation of powers?

 

Son the term is AGW and to suggest that the entire planet is being bought off in a giant conspiracy is laughable. Why do you trust the government for the food you eat, the water you drink, the medicine you take, the car you drive....but not this? It is laughable