Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Oops I forgot. You're smarter than all the scientists at the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration. My bad!
|
You mean the same National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that routinely "adjusts" temperature data to exaggerate warming? Their favourite trick is to take data from the past and adjust it downwards so the current temps seem warmer than they really are. Or in some cases they just cherry pick their data and only show the stuff that feeds the narrative.
Example:
NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years
Of the two graphs spliced together in the image above the one on the right is one that the NOAA just released under the narrative of "warmest ever". The one on the left includes data that they excluded from their release. Hmmmmm, I wonder why?
And how about that ocean "acidification" scare you always bleat on about
:
How Scientists Are Exaggerating the Threat of Ocean Acidification
Quote:
An ?inherent bias? in scientific journals in favour of more calamitous predictions has excluded research showing that marine creatures are not damaged by ocean acidification, which is caused by the sea absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. [?]
[A review of the science] found that many studies had used flawed methods, subjecting marine creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never be experienced in real life.
?In some cases it was levels far beyond what would ever be reached even if we burnt every molecule of carbon on the planet,? Howard Browman, the editor of ICES Journal of Marine Science, who oversaw the review, said. He added that this had distracted attention from more urgent threats to reefs such as agricultural pollution, overfishing and tourism.
|
You place so much blind faith in government and scientists that prop up your pet beliefs and causes. Because of you, people like you and the "climate scientists" you blindly follow, science is at risk of becoming irrelevant as argued in this essay:
Global Warming and the Irrelevance of Science
Quote:
In many fields, governments have a monopoly on the support of scientific research. Ideally, they support the science because they believe objective research to be valuable.
Unfortunately, as anticipated by Eisenhower in his farewell speech from January 17, 1961 (the one that also warned of the military-industrial complex), ?Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.? Under these circumstances, when the government wants a particular scientific outcome the ideal arrangement is vulnerable. However, as I hope to show, the problem is not simply bias.
Rather, the powers that be invent the narrative independently of the views of even cooperating scientists. It is, in this sense, that the science becomes irrelevant. This was certainly the case in the first half of the twentieth century, where we just have to look at Lysenkoism [1] in the former Soviet Union, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics throughout the western world [2], as well as, in the 1960s, the unfounded demonization of DDT [3]. Each phenomenon led to millions of deaths. And, in each case, the scientific community was essentially paralyzed, if not actually complicit.
[...]
|
Besides all of that what if increasing CO2 and warming is actually a good thing? In the midst of all of this supposed doom the earth is greening, extreme weather is down, polar bears are thriving, growing seasons are extended and life is more pleasant.
The real harm to people and the planet is coming from all of the time, money and effort spent, and wasted, on trying to reduce and mitigate CO2.
.