President's Decision To Leave Paris Accord Draws Criticism From National Park Advocates

The theory has been horribly wrong but they so want to believe.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/04/watch-chris-wallace-confronts-al...

More hokum.  Admits hurricanes haven't gotten worse, circulation "may" have decreased by it doesn't really matter, drought in one spot with no specific link to climate change is hardly a validation of a prediction of more and greater droughts, the arctic ice was predicted to be gone in 2013 not "as early as 2052, the antarctic sheet has been growing,, "historical evidence suggest" water level will rise in the future but the AGW models have over predicted the rise of the past as they have with rising temperatures.

Climate changes, the predictions of the pace of those changes based on AGW theory have been horribly wrong.

Trump's gift here to the Koch brotheres has been nationally and internationally scorned, with the miniscule but disproportionately  loud exception of a lonely handful of gadfly misfits here on NPT.

Hokum?  All we need to know is that we are dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at unprecidented levels, and that is warming the planet.  That is not Hokum ecbuck, not at all.  Anything you write to dispute this is not true.

Sorry, Rick and Arg, it looks like you've been Trumped by ec.  After all he points out that no less a world renowned scientific authority on everything like Chris Wallace has proclaimed on a right-wing website channel that the rest of the world is wrong.

But there is still hope.  It won't take much before downtown D.C. will be flooded.  Might not "drain" the swamp, but maybe flush it out. 

Who are we to try to argue with some of the world's top experts on everything.

Might as well give up and enjoy the roasting. 

Argalite - The AGW cult makes models based on the theory that our dumping greenhouse models is warming the planet.  The models have proved to be horribly wrong - as even Chris Wallace (that bastion of conservative thought) has come to realize.  I don't have to dispute it.  The facts dispute it.  

Lee you better go back and pay more attention to the story.  The interview wasn't on a right-wing website channel  and Chris Wallace is hardly some right wing interviewer. 

Global warming/climate change is not just based on models. It is also based on actual measurements of global temperature. The modelshave not been horribly wrong. They have been steadily getting better as more data is available and they can be updated. That is, in part, how science works. The idea of global warming is not just based on air temperature measurements across the globe. It predicts that there will be changes in ocean temperature, plants and animals, glacial melting, and much more. Thus it is not only climate scientists who accept that humans are causing a warming of the planet but oceanographers, fisheries biologists, glaciologists, botanists, zoologists, ornithologists, entemologists, and on and on and on. Here is a link to a fairly decent site that deals with the wide world of climate change. https://skepticalscience.com/

Grizz -  the fact that temperatures change, oceans rise and fall, plants and animals migrate is undisputed.  The issue is, what causes those changes.  The alarmist claim it is primarily or largely due to CO2 emmissions.  They have made predictions based on that theory. The predictions have been horribly wrong.  The scientific method says you need to come up with a new theory.  Instead, the AGW cult comes up with new numbers. 

Debunking the very fake news the AGW cult relies upon.

https://youtu.be/5ATswpscuUg

So THERE all you who believe in Global Warming!

We now have been provided with absolutely rock solid terrific PROOF that AGW is a hoax.  And it was provided by none other than some guy on YouTube.

The only thing better than that might be still more proof from Chris Wallace on FOX delivered to us by The Blaze.

They sure told those silly scientists what they really need to know!

In the meantime, the Park Service is simply wrong every time they point out another piece of evidence of effects of that hoax. 

I think I get it now Lee.  You have a complete inability to look at information, process it and come to your own conclusion.  Therefore you rely only on the source or on whether the argument being made is what you want to hear.  Tell us, what in the YouTube video was wrong?  Tell us, what in the Chris Wallace interview was wrong?  And please, tell us what evidence the NPS has provided that proves "Climate Change" is primarily caused by man.  

Ecbuck,

Just because some predictions have not beared out does not mean the science is wrong, it just means you don't understand, and will not ever be capable of understanding, due to your condition.

From the link provided on the first page:  "Some of the bold forecasts of the 2006 movie are holding, and others are on an accelerated track. A few of the most dire warnings need revising, says Thompson, at Ohio State University in Columbus. And plenty of questions remain. In a controversial paper in March in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, researchers argued that the effects of climate change could be even more severe and sudden than current predictions.

While a lot has changed, the fundamental understanding of climate change, dating back to the 19th century recognition that carbon dioxide warms the planet, has held strong, he says.

“The physics and chemistry that we’ve known about for over 200 years is bearing out,” Thompson says. “We’ve learned so much in the last 10 years, but the fact that the unprecedented climate change of the last 40 years is being driven by increased CO2 hasn’t changed.”

Here is another new video debunking the junk science claim that Arctic sea ice is experiencing a record decline. 

https://youtu.be/D_Qjj8hYpyc

Progressives have a "condition" about the Paris accord, because they understand nothing about science, climate, government, politics, or anything else. 

Just because some predictions have not beared out does not mean the science is wrong

By definition the science is wrong if its predictions are not bourne out.  It has nothing to do with my "understanding".  

Kurt, Mr Heller gets his data from the same place. Its just that you fell for the same deception trick that he was desrcibing in the video. NSIDC is cleverly hiding the two million km² ice gain which occurred prior to 1979. Had NSIDC begun their graph in 1971, it would be clear that Arctic sea ice is cyclical, not the fake linear trend they are scamming people with. 

These government agencies are cherry picking and lying to us but the "condition" that the progressives have prevents them from understanding that. 

Can't all you folks see that our friends who deny GW are proving beyond any doubt that the conspiracy theorists are right when they claim that their conspiracy theory about a climate conspiracy theory is under attack?  Remember that if you try hard enough, you can find something wrong with anything.  There are even some folks out there who deny that gravity really exists.  Science is a conspiracy theory that the conspiracy theorists are having a hard time conspiring to disprove.

Or something like that.

I guess we're gonna have to ask them to explain it.

Just one thing for everyone to remember:  There hasn't been any PROOF either way by anyone, so asking for PROOF is asking for something that doesn't exist.  Not yet, anyway.  But if a person wants to claim that whatever opinion they desire as proof, I guess it's up to them.  No point arguing with an opinion.  It's like arguing with a shadow. 

This is no different than the days in the late 1950's and early -60's when a similarly wild debate raged over something called Plate Tectonics and Continental Drift.  We know how that conspiracy theory turned out.  Someday, we'll find out how this one turns out, too.

In the meantime, enjoy the conspiracies and all their friends on FOX and The Blaze and the White House. 

Gosh Lee, seems your "condition" is getting worse. The progressives are the one of conspiracy theories.

Jun. 29, 1989 10:49 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AP)

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1989/U-N-Predicts-Disaster-if-Global-Warmin...

Lee --- just walk away. There is no possible way you will get anything admitted by these True Believers. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome]

Walk away. When we stop being a screen for them toi project their self-abuse against, they'll get bored and fine some other mud puddle to splash in.

Rick, I think your post is a glaring example of "Psychological projection". Your "true believer" of global warming is a "condition".

Greens are inventing elaborate fantasies of shadowy right wing conspiracies to explain President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Treaty – but still refuse to consider the possibility they are wrong about global warming.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/02/the-guardian-just-noticed-greens-...

There is little point in arguing with EC and others who get their science from youtube and Fox News and similar places. EC repeats over and over again that the climate models that ascribe warming to green house gases are wrong. That is not true. I don't have to come up with a new theory for warming, EC. There is one that works and is accepted by thousands and thousands of scientists who actually read the science journals. I get my information by reading the actual science. There is no magical unkown phenomenon that is producing a warming planet that all these scientists have been to stupid to find.

Grizz- The predictions haven't been wrong?  Tell me, has the Artic ice cap melted out?  Gore made the claim it would happen by 2013 or 2014 based on AGW theories.  Its 2017 and we aren't even close. 

Grizz, can you please provide some "actual science"? Thousands and thousands of scientists? LOL

Yes, Dumb, thousands and thousands

EC, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Scientists make predictions that change will likely be within certain high and low limits and then give probabilities. As new information is found, they revise their estimates. Gore tends to take the high estimates, and that is a mistake on his part.

Beach, or do you prefer Dumb? As Rick says, yes, thousands and thousands. We are not talking about just climatologists. Most scientists all around the world accept that the climate is warming and it is being caused by greenhouse gases from human activity. We are talking about biologists, botanists, zoologists, atmospheric physicists, physicists in general, planetary scientists, oceanographers, fisheries biologists, glaciologists, entomologists, biochemists, marine biologists, etc. etc. If you want to read the real science, go to your nearest university and take a look at the science journals in the library.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist

Correct, but he made his statements based on "scientists" predictions.  Those scientists were wrong.  

How about the predictions of more and more severe hurricanes.  How has that worked out?  Answer, its been wrong. 

Oh, EC, what a gotcha question. Read the real science and then come back and cite peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject and then we can have an intelligent discussion.

Gotcha?  The prediction was made based on AGW models.  The outcome was nowhere near the prediction.  There is nothing gotcha about it. It is fact.  And it is ony one of a long string of inaccurate predictions.

Have there been more and more servere hurricanes?

LOL

Sorry m13, I feel compelled to argue with them.  This sham is too costly to the American taxpayer and economy.  

AGW prediction:  Africa would see more droughts and declining vegetation.  Reality, precipitation is up and vegetation has expanded.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0081

EC, I could respond by posting this http://www.irinnews.org/feature/2017/03/17/drought-africa-2017, but if you actually understand the science, which you clearly don't, then neither of these articles prove or falsify human caused global warming. It is obvious that you don't understand physics, chemistry, climatology, etc. But mostly you don't understand science and how scientists work. You don't understand how climate models are developed, how they are tested, how they are modified as new data comes in. But mostly, you think that you know more about the subject and are smarter than the thousands of scientists who have spent their lives studying and working on the issues surrounding our changing climate.

Your article says there is drought in parts of Africa.  Hardly a revelation.  Drought in parts of Africa have been happening for thousands of years.  

You say I don't understand science.  I understand if "scientists" don't even agree on what is happening, they certainly can't agree on why.  

The predictions of the AGW models have been horribly wrong.

I give up. I guess my undergraduate science studies at Case-Western Reserve University and graduate study at California Institute of Technology and the University of California, Davis are no match for your real estate license when it comes to understanding science.

Well if you can't explain why the AGW models have been so wrong, I guess you wasted alot of educational dollars.  

I don't have to explain why the models have been "so wrong" because that is not a true statement. If you knew anything about the science behind them you would understand that. I have nothing more to say about this.

Grizz... Your patience so far has been  remarkable. You are in good company and are far from the first. From now on, just set your phasers to IGNORE.

Grizz, when a rocket blows up on launch you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know something went wrong.  I have repeatedly posted examples of the AGW predictions being wrong.  Your inability to explain why just demonstrates that your ideology trumps your education.

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

 
 

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

 As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

 The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

 Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

The report link: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-re...

As I've tried to write here before, the current argument over the theory of global warming reminds me of the battle between supporters of geologic plate tectonics and continental drift back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Good science takes time, careful inquiry, and a lot of thought.

The problem we face right now is that unlike plate tectonics, a changing climate can have much more profound effects upon humans and all other life on this planet. The researchers cited in comments above are playing out their role in this scientific investigation just as skeptical geologists did back in the fight over plate tectonics. The only thing certain at this point in time so we're all going to find out someday whether or not our planet is slowly becoming a sauna bath.

But facing that possibility, wouldn't be wise to err on the side of caution?

But facing that possibility, wouldn't be wise to err on the side of caution?

No it wouldn't.  1) Because the social and economic costs could be enourmous and 2) Because there is no evidence that on a net basis the world would be worse off warmer.  

There is no evidence on a net basis that the world would be better off richer, because the social and environmental costs could be enormous.  For a completely different opinion of the threats future generations may face, don't miss:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-ho...