Climate Science Explained

11870739_970714866319478_3448648103963083381_n

“Climate Science” might be defined as the process by which alarmist, anti-capitalist nonsense can be converted into tax dollars to further a socialist agenda.   Climate change is indicated by more storms, fewer storms, rain, drought, cooling, warming, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.  And mankind is the cause!  Walking to the mailbox can be a cause of climate change.  Newsweek this past April posited the earthquakes in Nepal as being caused by global warming.  Yes, the same Newsweek that blamed the 1974 Xenia tornadoes on global cooling.

Ahh, settled science.

7 thoughts on “Climate Science Explained”

  1. The climate actually cooled in the 60’s and 70’s due to increases in the number of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere. These were generated by dirty emissions from oil and coal burning power generation. (Remember acid rain ?). These aerosols increased high altitude cloud cover by acting as cloud condensation nuclei and reduced the solar radiation reaching the planet surface. As a result of a switch to cleaner fuel burning, the global warning (or as the republicans like to spin it – “climate change”) trend returned. It was always there – just mitigated for a couple of decades. It is settled and it’s happening. You have to be seriously low-information (or a paid hack) to believe otherwise. FYI the tenuous link between global warning and the Nepal earthquakes was a theory put forward by the political scientist Kumar Srivastava and has been widely discredited.

    1. Nice revisionist attempt to explain away the wildly importune and entirely mistaken proclamations of the global warmers for the last half-century. I particularly like your assertion that unleaded gasoline has halted global cooling and re-started global warming. Our cleaner industrial processes have been more than offset by China and India, whose industries do not have such rules and processes.

      The “tenuous link” between global warming and earthquakes was put forward by a “climate scientist” named McGrath, and was a feature article in Newsweek. No such follow-on article explaining that the theory was discredited was ever published.

      Oh, as for Republicans somehow inventing the term “climate change”, talk to the EPA and NOAA. Bastions of Republican hard-liners, they ain’t.

    2. The idea that we are significantly impacting the climate is bad logic, terrible science, and abysmal economics.

      The basic errors of science made by the IPCC are legion and well documented. Only a cultist would think that we can do anything about the climate.

    3. jandanagger laterrobinson, I’m not a LIV. I watched the entire arc of AGW in peer reviewed scientific papers over the decades. I saw the failed predications. AGW is not science (which is rarely “settled”), but a religion — faith beyond reason. There are numerous scientific errors, which I have listed before. Here are three highlights to refute you.

      Not to throw real science into the mix, but here is NOAA data that refutes the warmists:

      http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle

      The original predictions in the original papers are unfulfilled. For example, as the successors to DMAHTC if chart datum has changed, and how much. Then look at the 2003 predictions. They are way>/em> off. “Bad scientist, no grant for you.” would be appropriate.

      Two big volcanic eruptions and we will beg for more coal plants to save the planet with CO₂.

Comments are closed.