Global Warming is Irreversible, study suggests

I’m kind of relieved, in a way. It’s kind of like after you bomb a test, but there’s nothing you can do about it anymore. Plus, now I can go back to burning my garbage in the fireplace, which was always easier than taking it out to the bin.

“If it’s irreversible, it seems all the more reason to do something about it,” she told NPR.

Weird. Usually I go about only trying to reverse what is actually reversible.

Alexandra

Why do you focus only on those studies that say AGW is happening while completely ignoring people who disagree? Do you consider yourself a journalist or a propagandist? How come you don’t find it curious how unscientific the models used by global warming ‘scientists’ are?

In the past couple of weeks:

A recent study by Prof Eric Steig, and the discredited Dr M Mann, on how the Antarctic was warming, despite sea ice coverage being 30% above average last year. Steig’s computer model, through a formula not revealed, was set up to estimate the data that weather stations would have recorded if they had existed. Even AGW fans had a problem with this study: Dr Kevin Trenberth, member of IPPC, said “”it is hard to make data where none exists”.
——————-
NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, wrote “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.”
————————-
Dr J. Scott Armstrong, an expert on forecasting, wrote “Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming. We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting.”

Alexandra suffers from the same disease as Ti-guy: highly selective source reliance syndrome.

That’s not it at all. I’m suffering psychological discombobulation at the thought that we, as a society, are producing scientific illiterates who are convinced they’re experts in science.

When it comes to global warming, I’m highly and healthily skeptical (even if it is a dire as some predict, I’m not even that worried). But it’s mighty interesting to note that the deniers are as loony as, or loonier than, the 9/11 Truthers.

If you want to persuade people that AGW isn’t happening, Jarrid, the best thing you could do is to stop talking about it and copying and pasting things you don’t even understand.