Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas): "Climate change: Seven indisputable facts"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas): "Climate change: Seven indisputable facts"

    From The Hill...
    Climate change: Seven indisputable facts

    By Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) - 09/08/15

    President Obama last week visited Alaska to preach about the inevitable doomsday scenarios the world will face if Americans fail to embrace his extreme climate change agenda. Like all climate alarmists, the president wants Americans to believe there is no uncertainty about climate change. They pretend to know exactly how much human actions contribute to the changing climate. By denying any uncertainty, their goal is to shut off debate. “Just trust us. We know what’s best for you.”

    But the truth is there are more questions about climate change than there are answers. For instance, even the most advanced climate models all failed to predict the lack of warming the Earth has experienced over the last 18 years. But the president and his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuse to let facts get in the way of their determination to impose greater government control over the lives of the American people.

    Below are seven irrefutable facts about climate change that are ignored because they do not fit into the alarmists’ scare tactics. These facts are not disputed.

    1. For the past 18 years, weather satellites have not measured a global increase in temperatures although carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased over that same period.

    [...]

    2. According to the EPA’s own data, U.S. carbon emissions have decreased nine percent since 2005. These carbon reductions have occurred as a result of technological advancements and free market forces...

    [...]

    3. The natural cycle of global temperatures has resulted in both higher and lower temperatures over the past 1,000 years than exist today. These temperature fluctuations occurred before significant fossil energy use. So temperatures the Earth is experiencing now have been seen before.

    4. If implemented, the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan would reduce global temperatures by only 0.01, or one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.

    [...]

    5. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that there is little or no connection between extreme weather and climate change.

    [...]

    6. Population growth, especially in the developing world, will account for even more global carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from developing countries are projected to increase by over 125 percent by 2040.

    [...]

    7. Carbon dioxide accounts for a very small part of the Earth’s overall atmosphere and those levels have fluctuated throughout the Earth’s history. Carbon dioxide currently accounts for only .038 percent of our planet’s atmosphere. And human-made carbon dioxide only makes up about 3 percent of that.

    [...]

    Smith has represented Texas’s 21st Congressional District since 1987. He chairs the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and also sits on the Homeland Security and the Judiciary committees.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/252...sputable-facts
    20
    1. For the past 18 years, weather satellites have not measured a global increase in temperatures
    10.00%
    2
    2. According to the EPA’s own data, U.S. carbon emissions have decreased nine percent since 2005.
    10.00%
    2
    3. The natural cycle of global temperatures has resulted in both higher and lower temperatures over the past 1,000 years than exist today.
    10.00%
    2
    4. If implemented, the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan would reduce global temperatures by only 0.01, or one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.
    10.00%
    2
    5. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that there is little or no connection between extreme weather and climate change.
    10.00%
    2
    6. Population growth, especially in the developing world, will account for even more global carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from developing countries are projected to increase by over 125 percent by 2040.
    15.00%
    3
    7. Carbon dioxide currently accounts for only .038 percent of our planet’s atmosphere. And human-made carbon dioxide only makes up about 3 percent of that
    15.00%
    3
    I cannot explain why I chose to dispute any or all of the above.
    20.00%
    4
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    Predicting the future is always tricky. That one may or may not happen. We'll know in 2040...

    Comment


    • #3
      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

      Comment


      • #4
        ^ Saw that recently and it hits the nail on the head. great cartoon and too soon to rep you again.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          From The Hill...
          Climate change: Seven indisputable facts

          By Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) - 09/08/15
          ....

          [...]

          6. Population growth, especially in the developing world, will account for even more global carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from developing countries are projected to increase by over 125 percent by 2040.

          [...]

          7. Carbon dioxide accounts for a very small part of the Earth’s overall atmosphere and those levels have fluctuated throughout the Earth’s history. Carbon dioxide currently accounts for only .038 percent of our planet’s atmosphere. And human-made carbon dioxide only makes up about 3 percent of that.

          [...]

          Smith has represented Texas’s 21st Congressional District since 1987. He chairs the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and also sits on the Homeland Security and the Judiciary committees.

          http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/252...sputable-facts
          So I'm looking these two over and trying to do some number crunching, but not sure it computes correctly.

          Let's take that 0.038% in #7 and round it up to 0.04%, that equals the 400ppm that has the gorebots knickers in a knot. If humans only cause 3% of that CO2 level, than that's about 12 ppm.

          Taking #6, the carbon (CO2) emissions of the developing world increasing by 125% by 2040 means the 12 ppm goes up to 15 ppm ...

          With 280-300 ppm about the level needed to keep Flora and other 99.9% of life on this planet barely sustained, I fail to see where going from 400 to 403ppm is a problem.
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #6
            And yet, 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that global warming is real and a threat to human existence.

            Let's see. I could go with option A and believe some guy on the internet or I could go with option B and believe that 97% of the worlds scientists aren't in some sort of global conspiracy to pull of the greatest practical joke in the history of mankind.

            Decisions, decisions.

            After careful consideration, I'm going with option B.
            Conservatives in the U.S. won't be happy until Jim Crow returns and "White Heterosexual Only" signs are legalized.

            Comment


            • #7
              1) Has been shown repeatedly it is NOT "97% of World's Scientists" ....

              2) Science is not about "consensus" but about data~facts and replication~provability... "Case for" human causes of "Global Warming"; Natural Cycles aside ... remains VERY Slim to non-existant.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
                And yet, 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that global warming is real and a threat to human existence.
                <<snip>>
                After careful consideration,....
                Both are myths. Combined it is also an oxymoron.
                Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                Prayers.

                BoRG

                http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                Comment


                • #9
                  Who cares ???

                  I don't give a rats ass to global warming.
                  My boy's problem.
                  That rug really tied the room together

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
                    Who cares ???

                    I don't give a rats ass to global warming.
                    My boy's problem.
                    I hate to admit it but that is about as good an answer as is needed
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
                      And yet, 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that global warming is real and a threat to human existence.

                      Let's see. I could go with option A and believe some guy on the internet or I could go with option B and believe that 97% of the worlds scientists aren't in some sort of global conspiracy to pull of the greatest practical joke in the history of mankind.

                      Decisions, decisions.

                      After careful consideration, I'm going with option B.
                      Argumentum ad populum fallacy and wrong...
                      As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.




                      The largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it.” They provided this example of an implied endorsement:

                      ‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’


                      Carbon sequestration in soil, lime muds, trees, seawater, marine calcifers and a whole lot of other things have always been important for mitigating a wide range of natural processes. I have no doubt that I have implicitly endorsed the so-called consensus based on this example.

                      The second largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize.” Pardon my obtuseness, but how in the heck can one explicitly endorse the notion that “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic” without quantification? This is the exmple Cook provided:

                      ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’


                      Wow! I contributed to Romney for President… Yet most of his campaign warchest didn’t come from me. By this subjective standard, I have probably explicitly endorsed AGW a few times.

                      No Schist, Sherlock.

                      One of the most frequent refrains is the assertion that “climate scientists” endorse the so-called consensus more than other disciplines and that the level of endorsement is proportional to the volume of publications by those climate scientists. Well… No schist, Sherlock! I would bet a good bottle of wine that the most voluminous publishers on UFO’s are disproportionately more likely to endorse Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a documentary. A cursory search for “abiogenic hydrocarbons” in AAPG’s Datapages could lead me to conclude that there is a higher level of endorsement of abiogenic oil among those who publish on the subject than among non-publishing petroleum geologists.


                      These exercises in expertise cherry-picking are quite common. A classic example wasDoran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. This survey sample was limited to academic and government Earth Scientists. It excluded all Earth Scientists working in private sector businesses. The two key questions were:

                      1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
                      2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?




                      I would answer yes to #1 and my answer to #2 would depend on the meaning of “human activity is a significant contributing factor.” If I realized it was a “push poll,” I would answer “no.”
                      Interestingly, economic geologists and meteorologists were the most likely to answer “no” to question #2…

                      The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).
                      The authors derisively dismissed the opinions of geologists and meteorologists…

                      It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.


                      No discipline has a better understanding the “nuances” than meteorologists and no discipline has a better understanding of the “scientific basis of long-term climate processes” than geologists.

                      The authors close with a “no schist, Sherlock” bar chart:



                      The most recent example of expertise cherry-picking was Stenhouse et al., 2014.


                      The 52% consensus among the membership of the American Meteorological Society explained away as being due to “perceived scientific consensus,” “political ideology,” and a lack of “expertise” among non-publishing meteorologists and atmospheric scientists…

                      While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology and perceived consensus. At least for the measure of expertise that we used, climate science expertise may be a less important influence on global warming views than political ideology or social consensus norms. More than any other result of the study, this would be strong evidence against the idea that expert scientists’ views on politically controversial topics can be completely objective.
                      Finally, we found that perceiving conflict at AMS was associated with lower certainty of global warming views, lower likelihood of viewing global warming as human caused, and lower ratings of predicted harm caused by global warming.


                      So… Clearly, 97% of AMS membership would endorse the so-called consensus if they were more liberal, more accepting of unanimity and published more papers defending failed climate models. No schist, Sherlock!

                      What, exactly, is a “climate scientist”?

                      35 years ago climatology was a branch of physical geography. Today’s climate scientists can be anything from atmospheric physicists & chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists, oceanographers, biologists, environmental scientists, ecologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, geochemistry to economists, agronomists, sociologists and/or public policy-ologists.

                      NASA’s top climate scientist for most of the past 35 years, James Hansen, is an astronomer. The current one, Gavin Schmidt, is a mathematician.

                      It seems to me that climate science is currently dominated by computer modelers, with little comprehension of the natural climate cycles which have driven climate change throughout the Holocene.
                      Climate scientist seems to be as nebulous as Cook’s definition of consensus.

                      What is the actual consensus?

                      The preliminary results of the AMS survey tell us all we need to know about the so-called consensus…



                      89% × 59% = 52%… A far cry from the oft claimed 97% consensus.



                      Based on BAMS definition, global warming is happening. So, I would be among the 89% who answered “yes” to question #1 and among the 5% who said the cause was mostly natural.

                      When self-described “climate scientists” and meteorologists/atmospheric scientists are segregated the results become even more interesting…



                      Only 45% of meteorologists and atmospheric scientists endorse the so-called consensus. When compared to the 2009, American Geophysical Union survey, the collapsing paradigm sticks out like a polar vortex…



                      In reality, about half of relevant scientists would probably agree that humans have been responsible for >50% of recent climate changes. And there might even be a 97% consensus that human activities have contributed to recent climate changes.


                      However, there really isn’t any scientific consensus if it is defined this way:




                      So… Why is there such an obsession with a 97% consensus? My guess is that it is to enable such demagoguery.


                      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/1...mate-paradigm/
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Rep. Smith didn’t get this one quite right...
                        7. Carbon dioxide accounts for a very small part of the Earth’s overall atmosphere and those levels have fluctuated throughout the Earth’s history. Carbon dioxide currently accounts for only .038 percent of our planet’s atmosphere. And human-made carbon dioxide only makes up about 3 percent of that.

                        The current concentration is closer to 400 than 380 ppmv and more than 3% of that is likely to be anthropogenic.

                        Without the anthropogenic component of the carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2 would be 320-345 ppmv...



                        55 - 80 ppmv CO2 are probably anthropogenic.
                        • 55÷400 = 0.14 = 14%
                        • 80÷400 = 0.20 = 20%


                        Otherwise, fact #7 is accurate.

                        Fact #3 is debatable...
                        3. The natural cycle of global temperatures has resulted in both higher and lower temperatures over the past 1,000 years than exist today. These temperature fluctuations occurred before significant fossil energy use. So temperatures the Earth is experiencing now have been seen before.

                        It is unclear whether or not the current average surface temperature is lower, higher or about the same as 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). It is within the margins of error. Rep. Smith should have specified 10,000 years and his fact would have truly been indisputable.
                        Last edited by The Doctor; 10 Sep 15, 06:20.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Anthrax View Post
                          And yet, 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that global warming is real and a threat to human existence.

                          Let's see. I could go with option A and believe some guy on the internet or I could go with option B and believe that 97% of the worlds scientists aren't in some sort of global conspiracy to pull of the greatest practical joke in the history of mankind.

                          Decisions, decisions.

                          After careful consideration, I'm going with option B.
                          Show us where you got these facts please. I mean, The Doctor has posted up (extensively ) graphs and lots of sources that show you are dead nuts wrong on that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Salinator View Post
                            Both are myths. Combined it is also an oxymoron.
                            How dare you insult Doc's beliefs that way!

                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Show us where you got these facts please. I mean, The Doctor has posted up (extensively ) graphs and lots of sources that show you are dead nuts wrong on that.
                              Doc has also claimed that every scientist in the world is a junk scientist and that only he, who is NOT a scientist himself, is right.

                              There is a great deal wrong with that type of thinking, on many different levels.

                              Get a grip, TAG.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X