red states rule
03-31-2013, 03:53 AM
So what if the heating of Earth has stalled for nearly 20 years? That does not stop the liberal media from pushing the global waring agenda (higher taxes and more redistribution of wealth)
quick review of recent dispateches (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/search.hosted.ap.org/wireCoreTool/Search?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&query=global+warming) from the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press (http://www.bizzyblog.com/2012/04/09/ap-the-administrations-press-and-propagandists/), finds four items which unskeptically take claims of "global warming" at face value -- and that's just from Thursday and Friday.
Too bad for AP, and the public at large being brainwashed by the incessant repetition of what is proving to be patently false, that we're nearing the two-decade mark of flat worldwide temperatures, and that even reliably leftist outfits are starting to backtrack.
An item appearing in the March 30 print edition (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions) of the Economist which appeared on the web two days ago (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=A+sensitive+matter+the+economist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) acknowledges something which environmentalists have been trying to laugh off for may years: "OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar."
Logically, one might think that the Economist might have then explored the idea that maybe changes in the earth's temps and carbon emissions are unrelated. Nope:
It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.
Wow. A whole 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in 100 years, but none in the past 15 -- really 17 (http://www.real-science.com/warming-17-years) and now approaching twenty, leading to this disturbing (in their view) possibility:
Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models. If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
In other words, those precious models, for some of which the underlying data "somehow" got lost or deleted (http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/09/26/nro-the-dog-ate-my-global-warming/), will have been proven to worthless wastes of time.
That, of course, didn't cause the magazine to throw in the towel (old dogmas die hard):
The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.
Yeah, like prove that statist carbon-tax regimes are unnecessary. We can't have that.
The bottom line at the Economist is that it will only concede that "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified."
Just another day in the unreality-based community.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/03/30/warming-hiatus-nears-two-decades-ap-reports-continue-assume-global-warmi#ixzz2PAHNngff
quick review of recent dispateches (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/search.hosted.ap.org/wireCoreTool/Search?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&query=global+warming) from the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press (http://www.bizzyblog.com/2012/04/09/ap-the-administrations-press-and-propagandists/), finds four items which unskeptically take claims of "global warming" at face value -- and that's just from Thursday and Friday.
Too bad for AP, and the public at large being brainwashed by the incessant repetition of what is proving to be patently false, that we're nearing the two-decade mark of flat worldwide temperatures, and that even reliably leftist outfits are starting to backtrack.
An item appearing in the March 30 print edition (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions) of the Economist which appeared on the web two days ago (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=A+sensitive+matter+the+economist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) acknowledges something which environmentalists have been trying to laugh off for may years: "OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar."
Logically, one might think that the Economist might have then explored the idea that maybe changes in the earth's temps and carbon emissions are unrelated. Nope:
It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.
Wow. A whole 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in 100 years, but none in the past 15 -- really 17 (http://www.real-science.com/warming-17-years) and now approaching twenty, leading to this disturbing (in their view) possibility:
Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models. If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
In other words, those precious models, for some of which the underlying data "somehow" got lost or deleted (http://www.bizzyblog.com/2009/09/26/nro-the-dog-ate-my-global-warming/), will have been proven to worthless wastes of time.
That, of course, didn't cause the magazine to throw in the towel (old dogmas die hard):
The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.
Yeah, like prove that statist carbon-tax regimes are unnecessary. We can't have that.
The bottom line at the Economist is that it will only concede that "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified."
Just another day in the unreality-based community.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/03/30/warming-hiatus-nears-two-decades-ap-reports-continue-assume-global-warmi#ixzz2PAHNngff