Jump to content
toomuchbaloney toomuchbaloney (New Member) New Member

The Myth of Climate Change

Lounge   (15,121 Views 353 Comments)
2 Followers; 37,176 Visitors; 9,013 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

"Accordingly, Obama ostentatiously visited drought-stricken California last Friday. Surprise! He blamed climate change. Here even the New York Times gagged, pointing out that far from being supported by the evidence, "the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter." How inconvenient."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GE Will No Longer Design Projects to Please Climate Change Advocates

"Amy Ridenhour added:

For the past quarter-century, government and corporate efforts have plowed billions into the promotion and exploitation of the human-caused catastrophic global warming theory. The result has been higher taxes, greater deficits, higher prices, job loss and greater government control over our daily lives – all in service of a theory based on computer models that are not coming true. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bjorn Lomborg: Why Climate Activists Need to Dial Back on the Panic | TIME.com

"We need to get back to reality. Yes, global warming is happening. In the long run, it has an overall negative impact. But actually — and surprisingly for many — economic models generally find that moderate global warming is a net global benefit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Evidence Proves Global Warming is a Hoax, But That Doesn't Stop the Left - The Rush Limbaugh Show

"I say again as a broken record -- global warming is a political issue. It is as much a political issue to the left as abortion is. It's as big a political issue as health care is. It is nothing more than another spoke in the wheel that advances the Democrat or leftist agenda. It's not science. It has nothing to do with science. It's simply called "science" because science is still an area where most people do not think it's been corrupted."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement

While you keep reporting that less than one percent reported by Murdoch media sources, I am dealing with the effects of the melting of the polar regions. The bread basket of the US is in a huge drought. Even if there is no truth to this "climate change" why not prepare just in case it might be real? What do you have to lose. We know what Rupert Murdoch and all his media have to lose, money, readership, listeners. Apparently Rush has led the way for Clear Channel to lose money every quarter since 2008. They will say anything in order to sell to those who really want to oppose people who champion the concept.

So, what are you doing to prepare, just in case the climate change is real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that climate change is real and is happening. However, the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling throughout the ages.....what makes us so arrogant as to think we can stop it? I've never understood how paying more for "eco-friendly" products that don't work as well as traditional products (e.g. laundry detergent, light bulbs etc.) is supposed to make it all better when the effect is more like bailing out the ocean with a thimble. But, that's just a random thought from someone who admittedly is not particularly well-read when it comes to so-called "global warming"; I simply think we're spitting into the wind---it makes us feel better, but it won't affect the earth's cycles in any meaningful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the cost if the "what if it is real happens? While the conservatives point out that the weather goes in cycles there is also the problem that our population has about doubled in my lifetime. Any incident will have more impact than during the "last cycle" whatever that means to those who are deniers.

Irene, Sandy, and this winter the ice storm that knocked out power to 3/4 million people, just in the viewing area of Philly stations, cause enormous problems for everyone.

If you want to tell me the polar vortex has been around before, I agree. I also know that each cycle hits more people and causes more issues. I would rather be more prepared for these events than to have to continually point out that evidence based practice is the model nurses use for good reason. How can we ignore this in our environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that our conservative leadership has begun to promote the concept that climate is changing but not because of humans. There remains deep skepticism, however, that there is "global warming" and the fact that there has been no recordable global rise in temperatures for a short spell now, fuels that.

We, in healthcare, did get into the business of treating maybe's and that has had a pretty steep cost in some areas...antibiotic use comes quickly to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Myth of ‘Settled Science' | National Review Online

If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: “You sit in front of a computer screen for ten years and you start to think of your model as being real.” Not surprisingly, these models have been “consistently and spectacularly wrong” in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists Richard McNider and John Christy — and always, amazingly, in the same direction.

Settled? Even the U.K.’s national weather service concedes there’s been no change — delicately called a “pause” — in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×