How climate change transformed the Earth in 2016

-- moved topic --

EXPOSED: Govt Climate Change Data 100% Fabricated by NOAA

Published on 29 Dec 2016

The Federal government’s National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tells us
there’s been a 1.5F increase in global temperatures since the 1800’s. Where was the data
collected? What kind of accuracy did they have when the data was collected? How did NOAA
“adjust” the data to get what they wanted?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-28/100-us-warming-due-noaa-data-tampering

The Impending Collapse Of The Global Warming Scare

Even as this scare has advanced, a few lonely voices have warned that the radical environmentalists were taking the movement out onto a precarious limb. Isn't there a problem that there's no real evidence of impending climate disaster? But to no avail. Government funding to promote the warming scare has been lavish, and in the age of Obama has exploded. Backers of the alarm have controlled all of the relevant government bureaucracies, almost all of the scientific societies, and the access to funding and to publication for anyone who wants to have a career in the field. What could go wrong?

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/13/some-predictions-for-the-future-in-the-climate-game

More Cat 4 & 5 hurricanes, anyone?

More Cat 4 & 5 hurricanes, anyone?

That's a common, maybe the most common, logical fallacy used.

Correlation does NOT imply causation.

never has and never will 😉

Besides, that's not even true.

Let's see how you feel when you're picking up the pieces of environmental changes that directly impact your life, family and business.

For the sake of argument, what's wrong with looking around the planet and beginning to make changes that may help and protect our environment, our wildlife, our air, clean water, our lands, ourselves, future generations?

For the sake of argument, what's wrong with looking around the planet and beginning to make changes that may help and protect our environment, our wildlife, our air, clean water, our lands, ourselves, future generations?

In order to help, you have to understand it in the first place.

Helping with out understanding is why we have Casha, Tan-Tan, Mongoose etc etc etc...

Need I go on?

Whats wrong with looking at the past and how many absolute failures we've had with great intentions and being a little cautious this time around?

I agree that we should be polluting as little as possible, I disagree with lying about why and causing hysteria over nothing.

The real war on science
The danger from the Left does not arise from stupidity or dishonesty; those failings are bipartisan. Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats, but there’s plenty of ignorance all around. Both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas. Whoever’s in power, the White House plays politics in appointing advisory commissions and editing the executive summaries of their reports. Scientists of all ideologies exaggerate the importance of their own research and seek results that will bring them more attention and funding.
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.
http://judithcurry.com/2016/11/21/the-real-war-on-science/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4

For the sake of argument, what's wrong with looking around the planet and beginning to make changes that may help and protect our environment, our wildlife, our air, clean water, our lands, ourselves, future generations?

Nothing

But like everything in life there are trade offs.

As Judith Curry says:
The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100... The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options. We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change. We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.

For the sake of argument, what's wrong with looking around the planet and beginning to make changes that may help and protect our environment, our wildlife, our air, clean water, our lands, ourselves, future generations?

Global warming by George Carlin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

*-)*-)*-):D

The steady drip, drip, drip of information leaking out about the fraud involved with “Climate Change/Global Warming” is building a into reservoir of facts that totally debunk President Obama’s pet cause.

These truths cannot be contained any longer by the national media, left-wing academia, and the Democrat Party as people all over the world are now questioning the shoddy work, tampered-with data, and outright lying about the grand scam of “Climate Change/Global Warming.”

Most recently, a group of 300 scientists is warning the U.S. Congress about fraud going on by a leading government agency charged with examining the ever-changing climate.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/300-scientists-warn-congress-of-noaa-global-warming-fraud

Federalist papers, seriously?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/global-warming-101

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Typical example of disputing the liberal agenda with their own scientific data and results. They only want to cherry pick the parts that pushes their agenda forward, but when conservatives post the whole report or data that doesn't support the sky is falling, chicken little does what chicken little has always done and that is double talk and repeat the same thing like if they say it enough, it makes it more believe able rather than you believing your lying eyes. It's like I'm itching here and they are scratching me over there.

mike