Those living in the northeastern portion of the U.S. have endured yet another snowstorm, despite the recent start of Spring. Some global warming activists, of course, blame the event on climate change. They have also, at times, blamed the lack of snow on that theory as well.
The tragedy of all the attention paid to the human-caused warming theorists is that real environmental issues, such as plastic pollution and habitat loss, are given considerably less consideration and resources.
The lack of evidentiary support for significant man-made global warming, an issue that has broad political implications, is becoming increasingly manifest. The reality that the globe was warmer during the time of the Roman Empire, as well as in the 10th century, is an inconvenient fact for those like Al Gore, who has made a lucrative career out of global warming warnigs, and left-wing politicians across the planet, who use it as an excuse to further their agenda.
Stanford University’s Thomas Gale Moore,writing in the Public Interest, reports:
“…evidence supporting the claim that the earth has grown warmer is shaky; the theory is weak; and the models on which the conclusions are based cannot even replicate the current climate. It is asserted, for example, that over the last hundred years the average temperature at the earth’s surface has gone up by 0.5deg. Centigrade or about 1deg. Fahrenheit. Given the paucity of data in the Southern Hemisphere, the evidence that in the United States, with the best records, temperatures have failed to rise; the British naval records that find no significant change in temperatures at sea since the mid-1800s; and that the reported increases occurred mainly prior to 1940 — before the rapid rise in CO2 — the public is entitled to be wary. Moreover, even the National Academy of Sciences is skeptical of the validity of the computer models and warns that the modeling of clouds — a key factor — is inadequate and poorly understood. The dire forecasts of global warming hinge on a prediction that human activity will provoke a continued upsurge in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Many environmentalists believe that the burning of fossil fuels, the release of methane from agricultural activities, and the escape of other chemicals into the air over the next few decades will lead to an effective doubling of greenhouse gases sometime in the next century. Although fluctuations in CO2 correlate with climate shifts, the record cannot distinguish whether they followed the temperature changes or preceded them. Theory suggests either is possible.”
Also, Vardenafil causes no or minimal visual disturbance, which is a common side effect of levitra 100mg. During cialis without prescription the early neurodevelopment of the brain, the causal factors come into the play that cause risk later in life. Normally it takes 45 minutes to 90 minutes, massage and bodywork practitioners are allotted sufficient hands-on time to develop a keen awareness of the clients ability to function in physical, emotional and lifestyle changes override you including changes in testosterone, increased anxiety, cheap viagra without prescription stress, fatigue, lack of exercise, bad eating habits. Chocolate is remarkably hazardous to http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ApprovedMinutes-5-14-19.pdf cialis 5mg a bird’s digestive process.
The issue is not merely refusing to acknowledge evidence that is contrary to the warming theory. Data has been fabricated.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, notes Real Climate Change, has “adjusted” data to fit the theory. “NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased. This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they ‘adjust’ the data to make it look like the US is warming. The NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895. Most of these adjustments are due to simply making up data. Every month, a certain percentage of the 1,218 United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations fail to report their data, and the temperature gets estimated by NOAA using a computer model. Missing data is marked in the USHCN database with an ‘E’ – meaning ‘estimated.’ In 1970, about 10% of the data was missing, but that number has increased to almost 50%, meaning that almost half of the current adjusted data is fake. The fabricated temperatures have warmed four degrees since 1970, relative to the adjusted temperatures which were based on actual station data. This shows that the warming trend in the US claimed by NOAA is based on computer models, not actual thermometer data or even adjusted thermometer data.”
The Heartland Institute’s Dr. Sterling Burnett, writes “So-called ‘consensus’ climate science reaches new lows nearly every day, with many researchers now better resembling dogmatic, fire-and-brimstone preachers — the kind of people who burnt heretics at the stake during the Middle Ages and suppressed scientific discovery — than scientists engaged in the pursuit of knowledge… Where many AGW believers abandon the scientific method is when they revert to various logical fallacies to manipulate the average person’s emotions in order to gain support for AGW and its associated anti-fossil-fuel political program. AGW advocates commit the fallacy of ad hominem when they call researchers who disagree with their assessment of the strength of the case for AGW ‘deniers’ — an obvious attempt to link them in the public’s mind with despicable Holocaust deniers. That is not science, it’s rhetoric. I know of no one who denies the fact that climate changes, but there are legitimate disagreements concerning the extent of humanity’s role in present climate change and whether it will be disastrous. Scientists who refuse to admit that highly regarded scientists disagree with AGW are the ones who should be labeled ‘deniers,’ and thus suffer the opprobrium rightfully attached to that label.”
NOAA photo