Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post Reply
User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9006
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by macdoc » Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:56 pm

For fuck sakes your just a dust bin for denier crap - or maybe that is better said as a toilet bowl.

The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean - the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents.
read it or not I could give a fuck - your ignorance is astounding
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm

I'm not even gonna bother to explain the difference since you aren't listening anyway.
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by mistermack » Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:43 pm

macdoc wrote:For fuck sakes your just a dust bin for denier crap - or maybe that is better said as a toilet bowl.

The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean - the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents.
read it or not I could give a fuck - your ignorance is astounding
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm

I'm not even gonna bother to explain the difference since you aren't listening anyway.
Read that? No.
Skepticalscience is complete bollocks. It's no wonder you gush so much of it.
Link a scientific website, and I'm happy to look. But loony bloggers I don't waste much time on.
Oh, the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean eh? Amazing Sherlock. Who would have though it? Your Nobel Prize awaits.
But wait. What the fuck difference does that make? You forgot to say.
Why should that make the sea ice reach record levels, when the earth is remorselessly warming? You forgot to tell us.
tsk tsk.
Edit : Don't tell me, I've worked it out.
Another convenient feedback mechanism? Custom made to explain inconvenient facts.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by Seth » Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:15 am

Tero wrote:For those still reading the thread, here is the NASA posting on the 2013 sea ice
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arc ... ard-trend/

For the record, I never made any "the sky is falling" predictions. But it's pretty stupid to deny science that is very well explained and whose predictions have a large margin of error, indicated on most graphs.
"Indicated on most graphs?" No way, not the ones they create for the credulous masses. Perhaps the ones only THEY look at. If they did the global warming alarmists would have been lynched long since precisely BECAUSE every single climate model has a "margin of error" so large as little as one year out that the margin of error subsumes all possible predicted temperature fluctuations. In other words, if the "prediction" is stated to the public as "X degrees over the next five (or however many) years," the actual margin of error in the calculations is perhaps ten times that change ON EITHER SIDE of the "mean" prediction just one year out and it gets exponentially larger with every year that's added to the prediction.

This makes every single computer climate model just so much propagandistic prognosticatory horseshit for the consumption of the credulous proletariat.

In other words, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to model the earth's climate well enough to make ANY long-term predictions about the weather anything other than pure wild-assed guesses...which are these days based entirely on the bogus "global warming" industry that keeps climate scientists and politicians employed.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
piscator
Posts: 4725
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:11 am
Location: The Big BSOD
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by piscator » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:45 am

Seth wrote:
In other words, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to model the earth's climate well enough to make ANY long-term predictions about the weather anything other than pure wild-assed guesses...which are these days based entirely on the bogus "global warming" industry that keeps climate scientists and politicians employed.

Why can't we take temperature measurements of the same places over time? :naughty:

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by mistermack » Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:49 am

piscator wrote: Why can't we take temperature measurements of the same places over time? :naughty:
Nobody's saying that you can't predict last years climate. It's incredibly easy. Just look at the measurements that you mentioned.
It's NEXT years's climate that's a little more tricky. Nobody has found a way to accurately predict that, except to make thousands of different predictions, and then in a years time, find the one that was nearest, and hold it up in triumph.

The only thing that they CAN predict accurately, is the climate in a hundred years time. So they say. :funny:
Conveniently, we have to wait a hundred years to check that.

What happens then, when you say, '' look at all the money you made us waste ''. They can say,
'' sorreeeeeee '' and '' well, you shouldn't have believed to us ''.

It's not a joke though. The money that's being wasted on low-carbon stuff is gigantic, and could just as easily be spent on children's health and education, or something equally real and worthy.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51242
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by Tero » Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:04 pm

I hope someone steals your carbon

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9006
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming deniers are fucked up

Post by macdoc » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:07 am

's not a joke though. The money that's being wasted on low-carbon stuff is gigantic, and could just as easily be spent on children's health and education, or something equally real and worthy.
you mean like lining the pockets of Exxon and Koch and destroying the ecology as well as the warming the oceans and melting the glaciers....think of the children he says :roll: ....what a fuckup.

Meanwhile real companies are getting on with carbon reduction and saving a lot of money in the process
Here is a just a tiny list of the companies and jurisdiction who get it......you clearly don't.
May Gurney
Public infrastructure and waste management outfit May Gurney has set itself some tough carbon challenges. Already, the company’s sustainability initiatives have reduced emissions by some 18% and saved it £1 million on vehicle fuel.
Agilent Technologies
Saving $4.9 million in operational costs in just seven months.

Johnson Controls Corporate Headquarters
Creating a campus that has the largest concentration of LEED® Platinum buildings on one site.

ManpowerGroup
Saving $32 million in operational, maintenance, and real estate costs over 10 years.

National Geographic Society Headquarters
Becoming the first U.S. facility to achieve LEED-EB® certification.

Aberdeen Proving Ground
Saving $134 million in energy costs through 2030.

City of Baltimore, MD
Modernizing 50 city buildings and saving $60 million over 15 years.
there are many more just from this single site.

http://www.makeyourbuildingswork.com/case-studies/

You are as full of shit that lowering carbon cost money as you are on the science of AGW>....not one fucking clue.

Meanwhile the cost of the Anthropocene extreme weather events rises and rises.

$850 million when two intense thunderstorms collided and overwhelmed Toronto's water control systems a few weeks back
Toronto's July flood listed as Ontario's most costly natural disaster ...

http://www.thestar.com/.../july_flood_o ... tural_...‎
by Carys Mills - in 33 Google+ circles
Aug 14, 2013 - Insurance Bureau of Canada says property damage caused by storm that swamped the GTA on July 8 is more than $850 million.
The flood event in Colorado.....one in a thousand years....now becomes one in 50 years....
Colorado floods: Costly and often uninsured
CNNMoney ‎- 12 hours ago
Damage from Colorado floods will cost nearly $2 billion and for the most part will not be covered by insurance.
The list of costs skyrockets......but do nothing windgdings like you think killing carbon programs represents "saving the children" fucking whacked thinking that...
One of the biggest of the reinsurers is Swiss Re, and yesterday I had a chance to talk with the CEO of Swiss Re Americas, J. Eric Smith. Smith was in New York City to speak at an event for the Climate Group, an international nonprofit that works with companies, cities and states on sustainability. The event was held at the NASDAQ headquarters in Times Square, where the temperature threatened to push past 100°F. Global warming was on everyone’s mind, even though the air-conditioning inside was on full and shades blocked out the droning city sun. “What keeps us up at night is climate change,” Smith said. “We see the long-term effect of climate change on society, and it really frightens us.”

Read more: http://science.time.com/2013/07/17/the- ... z2fO24RmgP
:coffee:
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by Seth » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:12 am

piscator wrote:
Seth wrote:
In other words, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to model the earth's climate well enough to make ANY long-term predictions about the weather anything other than pure wild-assed guesses...which are these days based entirely on the bogus "global warming" industry that keeps climate scientists and politicians employed.

Why can't we take temperature measurements of the same places over time? :naughty:
You can, but all that tells you is what the temperature was in that place at that time. It says nothing about what the temperature will be tomorrow or 5 years from now, much less 100 years from now. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

It's like the "system" at roulette that "predicts" whether the ball is going to hit red or black depending on how many times it's hit on one color or the other in a row.

A misunderstanding of probability is what keeps Las Vegas in business.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming deniers are fucked up

Post by Seth » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:23 am

macdoc wrote:
's not a joke though. The money that's being wasted on low-carbon stuff is gigantic, and could just as easily be spent on children's health and education, or something equally real and worthy.
you mean like lining the pockets of Exxon and Koch and destroying the ecology as well as the warming the oceans and melting the glaciers....think of the children he says :roll: ....what a fuckup.

Meanwhile real companies are getting on with carbon reduction and saving a lot of money in the process
Here is a just a tiny list of the companies and jurisdiction who get it......you clearly don't.
May Gurney
Public infrastructure and waste management outfit May Gurney has set itself some tough carbon challenges. Already, the company’s sustainability initiatives have reduced emissions by some 18% and saved it £1 million on vehicle fuel.
How much did it/will it cost them to keep the program going?
Agilent Technologies
Saving $4.9 million in operational costs in just seven months.
At what capital cost? If it was worth doing, they would have done it anyway because it saves money, not energy. Energy savings, carbon footprint reductions and suchlike are second-order considerations. The improvement in energy efficiency of modern buildings was coming down the pike long before Obama started hammering the coal industry into powder. My guess is that Agilent was doing the upgrades anyway because it reduced their costs, and you're crowing about it as if they are all het-up about carbon footprints. They are, perhaps, but only to the extent that trying to look "green" is good for their bottom line, and no further.
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Saving $134 million in energy costs through 2030.
Prediction. We all know the value of government agency financial predictions...which is zero.
City of Baltimore, MD
Modernizing 50 city buildings and saving $60 million over 15 years.
So what? A proper government bureaucracy would do so as it's able simply to save taxpayers money. Most don't though. They have the endless taxpayer pocketbook to raid, so they run inefficient, ancient old buildings because politicians want to spend money on projects that the voters can actually SEE (like new roads and football/baseball stadiums) so they can get votes for "doing something."


$850 million when two intense thunderstorms collided and overwhelmed Toronto's water control systems a few weeks back
Which cannot be linked reliably to anything other than a random confluence of meteorological events. Same thing in Colorado. A rare, but not unprecedented confluence of atmospheric circumstances but nothing that can be tied to AGW.
The flood event in Colorado.....one in a thousand years....now becomes one in 50 years....
Horseshit. One unusual event does not a trend make I'm afraid. They've had floods before in Boulder, I know, I lived through all of them from 1960 on.
Colorado floods: Costly and often uninsured
CNNMoney ‎- 12 hours ago
Damage from Colorado floods will cost nearly $2 billion and for the most part will not be covered by insurance.
[/quote]

So what? Doesn't prove anything about the purported AGW as a cause.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9006
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

No Virginia AGW has NOT paused....

Post by macdoc » Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:44 am

Image
What ocean heating reveals about global warming
Classé dans:

— stefan @ 25 septembre 2013

The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.

The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there (you can read more about this in the last IPCC report from 2007). The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance.

If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.

If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.

The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.

The data in the graphs comes from the World Ocean Database. Wikipedia has a fine overview of this database. The data set includes nine million measured temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans. One of my personal heroes, the oceanographer Syd Levitus, has dedicated much of his life to making these oceanographic data freely available to everyone. During the Cold war that even landed him in a Russian jail for espionage for a while, as he was visiting Russia on his quest for oceanographic data (he once told me of that adventure over breakfast in a Beijing hotel).
continues....
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... more-15717
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9006
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by macdoc » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:54 pm

Deal with it :coffee:
How the Insurance Industry Is Dealing With Climate Change

Image
Risk analysis groups have detected an increased frequency of Atlantic hurricanes due to climate change, forcing insurance companies to rethink their models. Photo by Flickr user Brian Birke

When it comes to the calculating the likelihood of catastrophic weather, one group has an obvious and immediate financial stake in the game: the insurance industry. And in recent years, the industry researchers who attempt to determine the annual odds of catastrophic weather-related disasters—including floods and wind storms—say they’re seeing something new.

“Our business depends on us being neutral. We simply try to make the best possible assessment of risk today, with no vested interest,” says Robert Muir-Wood, the chief scientist of Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a company that creates software models to allow insurance companies to calculate risk. “In the past, when making these assessments, we looked to history. But in fact, we’ve now realized that that’s no longer a safe assumption—we can see, with certain phenomena in certain parts of the world, that the activity today is not simply the average of history.”

This pronounced shift can be seen in extreme rainfall events, heat waves and wind storms. The underlying reason, he says, is climate change, driven by rising greenhouse gas emissions. Muir-Wood’s company is responsible for figuring out just how much more risk the world’s insurance companies face as a result of climate change when homeowners buy policies to protect their property.

Image
Climate change could mean more frequent wind storms, increasing the level of risk taken on by insurance firms. Photo by Flickr user PSNH

First, a brief primer on the concept of insurance: Essentially, it’s a tool for spreading risk—say, the chance your house will be washed away by a hurricane—among a larger group of people, so that the cost of rebuilding the destroyed house is shared by everyone who pays insurance. To accomplish this, insurance companies sell flood policies to thousands of homeowners and collect enough in payments from all of them so that they have enough to pay for the inevitable disaster, plus keep some extra revenue as profit afterward. To protect themselves, these insurance companies even buy their own policies from reinsurance companies, who make the same sorts of calculations, just on another level upward.

The tricky part, though, is determining just how much these companies need to charge to make sure they have enough to pay for disasters and to stay in business—and that’s where Muir-Wood’s work comes in. “If you think about it, it’s actually quite a difficult problem,” he says. “You’ve got to think about all the bad things that can happen, and then figure out how likely all those bad things are, and then work out ‘How much do I need to set aside per year to pay for all the catastrophic losses that can happen?’”

With natural disasters like floods, he notes, you can have many years in a row with no damage in one particular area, then have tens of thousands of houses destroyed at once. The fact that the frequency of some catastrophic weather events may be changing due to climate change makes the problem even more complex.

The best strategy for solving it is the use of computer models, which simulate thousands of the most extreme weather disasters—say, a record-setting hurricane slamming into the East Coast just when the power grid is overloaded due to a heat wave—to tell insurance companies the worst-case scenario, so they know just how much risk they’re taking on, and how likely it is they’ll have to pay out.

“Catastrophes are complex, and the kinds of things that happen during them are complex, so we are constantly trying to improve our modeling to capture the full range of extreme events,” Muir-Wood says, noting that RMS employs more than 100 scientists and mathematicians towards this goal. “When Hurricane Sandy happened, for instance, we already had events like Sandy in our models—we had anticipated the complexity of having a really big storm driving an enormous storm surge, even with wind speeds that were relatively modest.”

These models are not unlike those used by scientists to estimate the long-term changes our climate will undergo as it warms over the next century, but there’s one important difference: Insurance companies care mainly about the next year, not the next 100 years, because they mostly sell policies one year at a time.

But even in the short term, Muir-Wood’s team has determined, the risk of a variety of disasters seems to have already shifted. “The first model in which we changed our perspective is on U.S. Atlantic hurricanes. Basically, after the 2004 and 2005 seasons, we determined that it was unsafe to simply assume that historical averages still applied,” he says. “We’ve since seen that today’s activity has changed in other particular areas as well—with extreme rainfall events, such as the recent flooding in Boulder, Colorado, and with heat waves in certain parts of the world.”

RMS isn’t alone. In June, the Geneva Association, an insurance industry research group, released a report (PDF) outlining evidence of climate change and describing the new challenges insurance companies will face as it progresses. “In the non-stationary environment caused by ocean warming, traditional approaches, which are solely based on analyzing historical data, increasingly fail to estimate today’s hazard probabilities,” it stated. “A paradigm shift from historic to predictive risk assessment methods is necessary.”

Moving forward, Muir-Wood’s group will attempt to keep gauging the shifting likelihood of a range of extreme weather events, so that insurers can figure out how much to charge so that they can compete with others, but not be wiped out when disaster strikes. In particular, they’ll be closely looking at changing the model for flooding rates in higher latitudes, such as Canada and Russia—where climate is shifting more quickly—as well as wildfires around the planet.

On the whole, it seems likely that insurance premiums for houses and buildings in flood-prone coastal regions will go up to account for the shifts Muir-Wood is seeing. On the other hand, because of the complex impacts of climate change, we might see risks—and premiums—go down in other areas. There’s evidence, for example, that snowmelt-driven springtime floods in Britain will become less frequent in the future.

For his own part, Muir-Wood puts his money where his mouth is. “I personally wouldn’t invest in beachfront property anymore,” he says, noting the steady increase in sea level we’re expecting to see worldwide in the coming century, on top of more extreme storms. “And if you’re thinking about it, I’d calculate quite carefully how far back you’d have to be in the event of a hurricane.”

Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science ... z2g0wu6600
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by mistermack » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:42 pm

What's becoming clear, if they are right about the oceans absorbing the missing heat, is two things.
Firstly, the climate models were wrong. They got it wrong. They fucked up. All that crap that they gave us about the accuracy of the models was a pack of lies. Funnily enough, that's what I've been saying all along.
Because the modellers MODELLED the uptake of heat by the oceans. They just modelled it wrong.

Why not fucking start again, and admit that they were just guessing?

What's also clear is that the PREDICTIONS are also wrong. Incorrect. Bollocks. Poor guesswork.
So why not start again, with new models, and new predictions. And don't try to con us that it's anything better than informed guesswork, this time.

There really is nothing to worry about, climate-wise. We are wasting huge amounts of money on renewables, for nothing.
Hydrogen fusion energy will be available in the second half of this century. It will drive down the cost of energy. That will reduce the use of fossil fuels, to very low levels. Not that it matters.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51242
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by Tero » Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:08 pm

Let's sum up your critical anslysis of "guesswork":
Image

User avatar
cronus
Black Market Analyst
Posts: 18122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:09 pm
About me: Illis quos amo deserviam
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by cronus » Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:21 pm

Confusion caused by idiots building on cheap accessible floodplains in the years they are not flooded. :prof:

What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Har Har Har Global warming crap

Post by mistermack » Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:46 pm

Well, the IPCC have done what I said they'd do, and raised their '' certainty '' level from 90 to 95 percent.

How have they managed this, in the face of the weakening evidence? I was wondering how they could pull it off.

The answer is that now, they are saying that they are 95% certain that PART of the warming, from 1950, is man made. And that part is just over half. This is new. So, in effect, they are hedging their bets in a big way, but giving the impression that AGW is becoming more certain year on year.

But what does it actually mean? They still have that five percent uncertainty, so they can say, '' we told you we weren't sure '' if temperatures start to plunge. And they now have another way out. They are now claiming that mankind is responsible for just over HALF of the observed warming, not all of it. Well, they can just backtrack further on that figure.

Of COURSE more CO2 in the atmosphere will have SOME sort of effect. It is after all, a greenhouse gas. The question is, how much.
They've just cut their estimation nearly in half. Cut it in half once more, and they might even be getting close to the truth.

They are easing the emergency door open, and the engine is running in the getaway car.

One other thing that I've noticed, is that now they are talking about warming from 1950 onwards, not from 1870 ish.
I've been pointing out how ridiculous that was from the start. I haven't read the whole thing, just seen snippets, so they might still be doing it in the detailed bits, but at least it's some kind of progress towards reality.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests