Not Just "Another Climate Change Post" - A Game ChangerSubmitted by Mark Vette on Sun, 09/22/2013 - 23:34
Quote, “The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.” – From the article you’ve never read by Dr. David M.W.Evans
This time, just for once, let’s leave the biased nicknaming of Warmists, Deniers, et cetera at the door. Those are meant to promote division on a personal basis. This whole thing really comes down to science.
I ask you to view this post regarding our ever changing climate as objectively as you can.
Why now? Why post this today? Because of this press release:
By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle
OSLO | Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:22pm EDT
(Reuters) Scientists set to prepare strongest warning that warming man-made
Scientists meet on Monday to prepare the strongest warning yet that climate change is man-made and will cause more heatwaves, droughts and floods this century unless governments take action.
The draft says temperatures could rise by up to 4.8 degrees Celsius (8.6 Fahrenheit) this century, but could be held to a rise of 0.3C (0.5F) with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Governments have promised to limit a rise in temperatures to 2 degrees C (3.6 F) above pre-industrial times.
The range differs from scenarios of 1.1 to 6.4C (2.0-11.5F) gains by 2100 in 2007, largely because of new computer models.
As I’ve said, it all really comes down to science. And we can break down the science into, essentially, two categories.
~ What is known: that which is recorded in nature (Ice cores, tree rings, etc.) And empirical observation; use of instruments sampling contemporary levels of relevant data.
~ What is speculated: Predictions of climate behavior observed through computer modeling of the latest relevant data collected from those instruments referenced above. That data, the base line, is modified by the known physical properties and behavioral characteristics of those elements (expressed mathematically) along with complex and precise algorithms that represent what should happen as CO2 rises and amplifies its influence upon the earth’s climate.
Sounds like they have it all figured out. Except ...
... So far all of their ‘predictions’ have either fallen short of actual data collected for the modeled time frame, or in some cases, are the opposite of what actually happened, climatically.
To understand: Every single warning, every single statement put out that infers climate change is based solely on a simulation. A computer model. And, over the last 20 years to date, none of the models have come even close.
Let me ask you; Did you believe Secretary Kerry when he said Syria has used chemical weapons and we have proof? You didn’t? Why? Because you’ve heard that line before, right?
So, when you look back at the models previously used to predict climate change due to global warming (as seen in the video and sourced article below) and they are inaccurate, why are you still buying the predictions of the future they’re selling today?
That quote you read as my introduction is from the man who worked full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (renamed: Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010. Dr. David M.W.Evans.
It is quoted from the article he wrote (cited below) that you’ve probably never read because the msm and the proponents of climate change do not wish it.
The key here is: The factor not correctly factored. Feedback.
Now, I will say this is a long and interesting read. If you can find the time to read it, that’s fine.
I’ve included a video where the host reads aloud the article and shows the graphs and images from the source material.
But, if you comment here without the prerequisite of viewing the material I’ve linked, (at least the video) then you don’t care about science – you are stuck in the political paradigm and that is not a valid stance for discussion.
The Skeptic's Case
The video rendition of the article:
Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case