EPA chief�s questions about climate science draw new scrutiny

How dare he question the religion of man made global warming. You poor saps.

Putting someone ignorant of Science in charge of the EPA only goes to show how much Trump actually cares about the United States, as opposed to his wallet.

This is his claim:



There is no science negating that sentiment.

There are hypotheticals postulating crisis to catastrophe and there is a faith by some that there is science capable of measuring global temperature to within a tenth of a degree over an extended history and predicting what's coming next. The latter is nonsense. The former hasn't even risen to the level of the theoretical.

The chicken little 'sky is falling' aspect of global warming belief is not science. It's politics.

He seems like he has a firm grip on reality as opposed to an irrational and near-religious faith in utterly biased computer models:

He seems like he has a firm grip on reality as opposed to an irrational and near-religious faith in utterly biased computer models:



Once again, they are not 'computer models' they are mathematical models, and 'proof of concept' because they accurately predict the average temperature with a good deal of accuracy. And they have zero to do with the statement he made. It's not the temperature that matters, it's the rate of change. We can adapt, but what about everything else?

For example:

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

I've posted many times before it's not the temperature of the Earth that we need to worry about, it's the collapse of the ecosystem. Can we survive 2 degrees warming? Probably, if we abandon equatorial regions. Will the ecosystem of the oceans be able to adapt to the more acidic oceans? Probably not. In the short term, fish stocks will likely collapse, and what are a large percentage of people who depend on the oceans for food going to eat?

Then there is the adaptability of plants. Without plants, Earth has no oxygen. What will we breathe?

So his statement 'will humans survive warming' is misdirection. We might, but most everything we depend on might not. South Africa is already experiencing water shortages due to lack of rainfall and loss of glaciers. Only 82 years to go!

Psh, I'm sure drastically altering the pH level of the largest bodies of water on the planet will have no ramifications for the plant and wildlife that live in it. And even if it does, we live on land! Doesn't affect us at all.


/s

I'm sure our analysis of the 37,000 year long Siberian Volcano incident that spewed CO2 and H2S into the atmosphere is severely flawed.

/s

Climate Change denial is the religious belief. Their insistence that we can just keep polluting indiscriminately without consequence is not fact-based and their constant attempts to shut down all research in the subject os Fiddles �shutuppery� at work.

We know where climate change denial and anti-environmentalism comes from: people who get rich polluting don�t want to lose their cash cow so finance propaganda. Most climate denier groups can be traced back to the same common sources of funding and have close ties to each other.

The opposite cant be said of climate scientists, who are politically and geographically diverse and would have no incentives to fabricate their claims, let alone spend their time and money engage in some ridiculously implausible vast world-wide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people from all levels of society who don�t even live in the same country let alone know each other

It's leaded gasoline round 2.

No beach time for you Tricks.

And now for the regular segment of these threads, I'm going to call 'What Doc's not telling you."

There are tons of climate models. The ones predicting catastrophe are not the one he just dragged out predicting 2 degrees warming per doubling of CO2.

At the time of the height of the Al Gorian climate scare, which allowed all these hysterical political over-reactions, they were predicting as high as 9 degrees per doubling and some were telling us we were to expect the mass flooding of coasts, the end of snow in Britain, and no summer ice in the Arctic by now.

Doc's article on the particular climate model he finds amazingly accurate ends like this?



Okay, well if we're using the model he's bragging about in his post that's not going to happen. Not for over a thousand years at that rate anyway.

As to Oceans. There is a slight change. You could say slightly less alkaline or if you wanted to be hysterical you could say more acidic. It depends on what you want to sell.

But corals, bivalves and other sea life have survived and even thrived in much warmer oceans under atmospheres of much higher CO2 content.

And there's another sneaky little insinuation when Doc sneaks in "rate of change."

The insinuation is that because one of a multitude of climate models was able to predict the change over a 50 year period, or so, it means we actually have accurate, reliable estimates over the geologic history of earth telling us there's something about the rate of change in today's climate that's never happened before.

There is no hard science reason to believe that.

Take your pick: