Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,381
edits
Changes
→Difficulties with the theory
*'''Carbon dioxide can be absorbed by promoting plant growth, an angle overlooked by the mainstream media.''' In fact, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has already resulted in an increase in plant growth. If that's not enough, iron filings can be dumped at sea to encourage the growth of marine plants.<ref>Carrington, Damian, "[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon Dumping iron at sea can bury carbon for centuries, study shows]" ''The Guardian'', 18 July 2012.</ref> Freeman Dyson, America's top physicist, has suggested genetically engineering trees to absorb more carbon.<ref>"[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015]." Dyson recommends ''Cool It'' (2007) by Bjorn Lomborg as the best summary of the AGW issue.</ref>
*'''Carbon dioxide can be absorbed by promoting plant growth, an angle overlooked by the mainstream media.''' In fact, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has already resulted in an increase in plant growth. If that's not enough, iron filings can be dumped at sea to encourage the growth of marine plants.<ref>Carrington, Damian, "[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/iron-sea-carbon Dumping iron at sea can bury carbon for centuries, study shows]" ''The Guardian'', 18 July 2012.</ref> Freeman Dyson, America's top physicist, has suggested genetically engineering trees to absorb more carbon.<ref>"[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015]." Dyson recommends ''Cool It'' (2007) by Bjorn Lomborg as the best summary of the AGW issue.</ref>
*'''If the science were in fact settled, we would see less outrage at "deniers" and greater concern for scientific integrity.''' One climate science scandal after another has been exposed. The Climategate emails show hoaxers scurrying to "hide the decline."<ref name=MISH>"[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html#quEdWPhB8b6cs07f.99 Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]", ''MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis''</ref> The "hockey stick" view of climate history, which holds that global temperature was constant for 2,000 years and then surged in the last century, has been repeatedly debunked.<ref>Muller, Richard A., "[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell]", ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.</ref> No one's reputation is tarnished by these bloopers, no one pays any price. The first response of AGW backers is name calling and attempts to shut down the discussion. Argument is a last resort.<ref>Phil Plait, columnist for ''Discover'', is a good example. Plait has only contempt for those who express concerns about scientific integrity in climate research: "yawn," "non-event," etc. With no sense of irony, he can write, "these denialist claims are largely ad hominems." If you fail to show "the scientists" enough respect, then you are a "global warming denier." This name-calling-as-argument strategy is typical of AGW hacks. (Phil Plait, "[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/#.WHMkC9J97cs The global warming emails non-event]," ''Discover'', November 30, 2009.)</ref> The logical explanation is that they already know AGW is a hoax, and they don't care.
*'''If the science were in fact settled, we would see less outrage at "deniers" and greater concern for scientific integrity.''' One climate science scandal after another has been exposed. The Climategate emails show hoaxers scurrying to "hide the decline."<ref name=MISH>"[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html#quEdWPhB8b6cs07f.99 Beware The Ice Age Cometh: Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]", ''MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis''</ref> The "hockey stick" view of climate history, which holds that global temperature was constant for 2,000 years and then surged in the last century, has been repeatedly debunked.<ref>Muller, Richard A., "[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell]", ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.</ref> No one's reputation is tarnished by these bloopers, no one pays any price. The first response of AGW backers is name calling and attempts to shut down the discussion. Argument is a last resort.<ref>Phil Plait, columnist for ''Discover'', is a good example. Plait has only contempt for those who express concerns about scientific integrity in climate research: "yawn," "non-event," etc. With no sense of irony, he can write, "these denialist claims are largely ad hominems." If you fail to show "the scientists" enough respect, then you are a "global warming denier." This name-calling-as-argument strategy is typical of AGW hacks. (Phil Plait, "[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/#.WHMkC9J97cs The global warming emails non-event]," ''Discover'', November 30, 2009.)</ref> The logical explanation is that they already know AGW is a hoax, and they don't care.
=== How accurate are weather forecasts and climate forecasts? ===
In 2013, ''Scientific American'' published an article entitled ''Why Are Weather Forecasts Often Wrong?''<ref>[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-weather-forecasts-often-wrong/ ''Why Are Weather Forecasts Often Wrong?''] By Lee Falin PhD on January 9, 2013, ''Scientific American''</ref>
In 2020, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggests a seven-day weather forecast by a [[meteorology|meteorologist]] could accurately predict the weather about 80 percent of the time.<ref>[https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/01/02/forecast-models-keep-hinting-at-subzero-air-ahead How accurate are forecast models 1 to 2 weeks ahead?]</ref><ref>[https://www.wral.com/how-accurate-are-weather-forecasts/19645159/#:~:text=Longer%2Drange%20forecasts%20are%20less,90%20percent%20of%20the%20time. How accurate are weather forecasts?], WRAL</ref> However, beyond 10 days, a weather forecast is only right about half the time.<ref>[https://www.wral.com/how-accurate-are-weather-forecasts/19645159/#:~:text=Longer%2Drange%20forecasts%20are%20less,90%20percent%20of%20the%20time. How accurate are weather forecasts?], WRAL</ref>
The accuracy of the long-range forecasts of climate scientists' that are 10 years or decades ahead of time are of dubious value (See: [[Limitations of science]]). Environmentalists have a history of making alarmist statements that do not come to fruition.
==History==
==History==