Mooney relies on a staple of alarmists, what Andrew Revkin calls the “single study syndrome” (e.g., see his NYT articles here and here). The mainstream media broadcast scary papers but never mention those that contradict the doomster climate story. For example, a new paper by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate: “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity.” This is one of several paper suggesting that the climate is much less sensitive to CO2 than the major climate models assume. Letting people learn about this science would ruin the science is science is settled narrative.
The biggest newsmakers in the crisis have involved psychology. Consider three findings: Striking a “power pose” can improve a person’s hormone balance and increase tolerance for risk. Invoking a negative stereotype, such as by telling black test-takers that an exam measures intelligence, can measurably degrade performance. Playing a sorting game that involves quickly pairing faces (black or white) with bad and good words (“happy” or “death”) can reveal “implicit bias” and predict discrimination.
All three of these results received massive media attention, but independent researchers haven’t been able to reproduce any of them properly. It seems as if there’s no end of “scientific truths” that just aren’t so. For a 2015 article in Science, independent researchers tried to replicate 100 prominent psychology studies and succeeded with only 39% of them.
This is easily seen in the ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ hoax where actual results are replaced with easily manipulated computer games (or ‘models’ as they are called). The results of these computer games, which can’t even accurately reproduce yesterday’s known weather, purport to predict the climate 30, 50, 100 years out. These results are then said to show catastrophe in the making unless we raise taxes to prevent it.
And if you don’t ‘believe’ that a) man is causing climate change and/or b) that raising taxes will miraculously reverse the trend, you are a ‘climate-denier’ and don’t ‘believe’ in science, as if science were a religion instead of a method of understanding the physical world.
I blame leftists who’ve dumbed down the education system so badly that people can’t think critically anymore. If a ‘scientist’ says so, it must be true. Disregard the fact that all of predictions made by these ‘scientists’ have failed to come to pass. The ice caps are still there, the glaciers haven’t melted, and the seas haven’t risen.
City officials, led by Mayor Eric Garcetti, are hoping that the whiter roadways will reduce the urban heat island (UHI) effect, which can make urban areas much warmer than rural areas.
What this really means is that so-called ‘global warming’ is nothing more than the well-known heat island effect skewing temperature data that is collected in urban areas. Global warming is a scam to collect more taxes and limit our freedoms.
“There’s one huge caveat: Emanuel didn’t actually study Hurricane Harvey itself. Instead, Emanuel’s study is based on thousands of climate model runs to find out the odds a storm will bring the amount of rainfall Hurricane Harvey did when it made landfall in late August 2017.”
‘Climate models’, ie, computer games, do not make it science.
Source: Accuracy in Academia
In reality, carbon dioxide is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. It enables plants of all kinds to convert soil nutrients and water into the fibers, fruits and seeds that are essential to humans and animals. The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better plants grow, and the more they are able to withstand droughts, disease, and damage from insects and viruses. In the process, crop, forest and grassland plants, and ocean and freshwater phytoplankton, exhale the oxygen we breathe.
They believe in fake science.
In this debate, there are two types of evidence. The first is the raw material of science, observation. The second is climate models…
means video games
created by alarmists for the purpose of generating scary scenarios. Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with science understands that observation (type 1) trumps theory (type2). Which is a serious problem for the left-wing warmists, since temperature records show that their models are wrong.
Despite myriad predictions of monster storms after Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, there were not a plethora of superstorms to follow. Why not? These megastorms were predicted based on the “settled science” of global warming, climate change, severe weather, and the like.
If you believe that being gay is hardwired and unchangeable but insist that male and female are merely social constructs and that folks can change their “gender identities” from one day to the next, there’s a good chance you are a Progressive Democrat.
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)
Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the C02 level was about 2200 ppm—still five times the current level.
Certainly it is a worthy thing to study ways to provide security and resilience for our cities. However, if you start with an unchallenged belief in imaginary global warming, you are going to end up making things worse. Substituting wind or solar power for conventional power plants does not provide greater energy security, for obvious reasons. Worrying about fashionable, imaginary water shortages distracts from real urban problems such as crime or broken families. Worrying about food security is fairly comical given the obesity epidemic.
Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability?
Free copy of the book in pdf format. Link is in the article.
The funniest thing about the article is the authors’ (yes, “authors,” as it took two of them to write this steaming pile of ignorance) . . . the authors’ certitude that consensus is the same as science. In WaPo land, there is no solar activity; there are no pauses in the warming; there aren’t any computer simulations that were decisively wrong; there are no laughable predictions about 20 foot increases in the ocean’s level or double-digit temperature increases; and, most significantly, there is no record of fraud.
“The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis. “Astronomical theory permits a very detailed evaluation of past climate events that may provide an analog for future climate.”