Archive for duane thresher

Ten More Years

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on May 16, 2017 by andelino

In 1988 “Climate Czar” Gore told the world that “We only have ten years left to save the planet.”

In 1989 the United Nations “decreed” the same thing.

During the 2000 “election” season Climate Czar Gore who has “never been wrong,” issued a fatwa that “we only had ten years left to save the planet.”

In 2006, Climate Czar Gore “issued” another fatwa: “we only had ten years left to save the planet.”

Unfortunately, nobody “listened nor paid attention” to Climate Czar Gore’s “predictions.”

But now, we are told we only have “Ten Years to Save the Earth.”

Here’s a fun link listing the wrong apocalyptic predictions made at the first “Earth Day” in 1970.

In the latest radical climate “doom-saying,” a new report “warns” that fossil fuel consumption will need to be reduced “below a quarter of primary energy supply by 2100” to avoid possibly “disastrous effects on global temperatures.”

In their report, titled “Pathways for balancing CO2 emissions and sinks,” a team of eight scientists warns that “anthropogenic emissions need to peak within the next 10 years, to maintain realistic pathways to meeting the COP21 emissions and warming targets.”

The statement was immediately repackaged by environmentalists to read: “Scientists say we have ten years to save the earth.”

As is always the case in studies of this sort, the scientists “juggle” dozens of variables, none of which is entirely “predictable” and which taken together tell us virtually “nothing” about the future of the environment.

Although the scientists admit that “there are significant uncertainties associated with projecting energy consumption several decades into the future,” they fail to acknowledge a number of even greater “uncertainties” implicit in their calculations.

Despite their “valiant” efforts to produce trustworthy “projections,” the scientists rely on basic “presumptions” that are contested by extremely “capable” minds within their own field.

Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD. from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has stated bluntly that it is “mathematically impossible for climate models to predict climate.”

Appealing to corollaries of the well-known “Butterfly Effect,” Thresher said that long-term climate forecasting is “a quintessential example of this phenomenon” because of the elevated number of variables playing into climate phenomena.

“Climate models are just more complex/chaotic weather models,” Thresher has noted, “which have a theoretical maximum predictive ability of just 10 days into the future.”

“Predicting climate decades or even just years into the future is a lie, albeit a useful one for publication and funding,” he said.

Undaunted, the team of scientists has “declared” that achieving global, net decarbonization of human activities “would halt and even reverse anthropogenic climate change through the net removal of carbon from the atmosphere.”

Among the many “unproven” assumptions behind this assertion is the “implied” claim that human-induced climate change (itself a contested concept) is a function solely of “carbon emissions, such that “net decarbonization” would halt or reverse it.

Here the scientists state as “fact” what is by all accounts very much an “unproven” hypothesis.

In recent studies, plants have been found to adapt to a greater carbon concentration in the atmosphere, unexpectedly “accelerating” their ability to assimilate carbon, something “unaccounted” for in the new report.

Moreover, there is still significant “debate” within the scientific community regarding the precise relationship between “carbon presence in the atmosphere, global temperatures and the health of the planet.”

While this study takes for “granted” that carbon dioxide is an “evil” that must be severely “restricted,” other eminent scholars have suggested that the “contrary is true.”

One such scientist, Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, has “insisted” that the earth can handle substantially more “carbon dioxide” than is currently found in the atmosphere and would actually “benefit” from a higher concentration.

“We’ve heard that CO2 is a demon molecule that causes global warming,” Happer has stated, whereas in “reality” more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces increased “crop yields and a greener planet.”

According to Happer, an “increase” in carbon dioxide would “benefit” both plant life and human life.

Similarly, Dr. Indur Goklany, who has previously “represented” the United States on the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC), has asserted that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally”.

“The benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain,” he said in a 2015 paper titled “Carbon Dioxide: The Good News.”

It’s a good thing that the “Sheeple” have short memories. They might accuse us of “crying Wolf” or something.

As a rather “modest” student of Earth’s history, I’m “vexed, flummoxed, concerned and confused,” but mostly, I just don’t “trust” these climate scientists.

What “exactly” is the Earth’s normal “temperature” anyway? As far as I’m concerned the Earth’s “normal” temperature is 61F.

61F (16 C) is a lovely temperature “if” the humidity is low. Why does “no one” talk about humidity?

Everyone says, “it’s not the heat, it’s the humidity” and yet this issue “remains unresolved.

Did I get that “wrong?” Are they saying “something” else? Like, “it’s not the heat, it’s the stupidity.”

None other “but” NASA/GISS itself has an answer.

This is “undeniable,” scientific-consensus “proof” that the glorious world of “Ten More Years” is at hand.

Just “ten” more years.

Global warming: Science or dogma?
When climate change warriors can’t keep their stories straight
Climate “Science” Rocked By Another Scandal
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

%d bloggers like this: