Re Comments? Re New York Times defends hiring extreme climate denier: 'millions agree with him'

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Rob McEwen <rob () invaluement com>
> Date: April 23, 2017 at 3:55:15 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net, ip <ip () listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re Comments? Re New York Times defends hiring extreme climate denier: 'millions agree with him'
>
> > Climate change deniers, of course, have very little data on their side.
>
> First, nobody denies that the climate does change. It has been doing so for all of recorded history, and beyond--long 
> before humans spewed any (or very much) CO2. (mostly due to long-term cyclical sun cycles). Nobody denies that.
>
> The attempted changing of the term "global warming" to "climate change" is a "bait n switch" - and then the 
> assumption that someone who:
>
> (A) doesn't believe that the release of CO2 by mankind has caused any statistically significant rise in global 
> warming... and that there are OTHER explanations for this that make more sense (such as long-term cyclical sun cycles)
>
> therefore MUST ALSO believe:
>
> (B) that the climate doesn't ever change
>
> The idea that A must equal B... is insulting and childish. The real scandal here is the attempted "moving of the 
> goalposts" - by switching "global warming" to "climate change".
>
> In fact, a significant amount of climate change came BEFORE mankind spewed very much CO2.
>
> For example:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Frost_of_1683–84
>
> For various years - the Thames river froze over - in 1683–84 it froze over to a depth of over 1 foot thick ice... 
> THEN... over the centuries since then - a whole lot of global warming happened SINCE then, yet BEFORE that point 
> where humans spewed any statistically significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> Then there is that pesky problem where CLIMATEGATE revealed that the scientists at the most prestigious institution 
> in Europe for studying global warming - had internal emails revealed them admitting that the Medieval Warming Period 
> was warmer than anything we've seen in modern times. They then discussed ways that they could hide that.
>
> Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth tried to downplay the Medieval Warming Period as more mild - but the the ONE scientist 
> whose data Inconvenient Truth was based on - LOST all of his data. Funny how this lost data - was made out to be such 
> a big deal in the news media - because if all of this data really is "peer reviewed", shouldn't that have not even 
> mattered? Hmmmmm?
>
> Then, more recently, a lowly blogger dug into the raw data of the ground sensor data for recent years... he just 
> looked at THEIR published data... and found that very very creative algorithms were being applied to the data to 
> FORCE it to show global warming - where their raw data (BEFORE applying those algorithms) showed ZERO global warming 
> in the past 15. (just as the satellite data shows no significant warming trend for the past 15 years either)
>
> Of course, whenever there is an unusual seasonal/regional warmth due to ocean current cycles (El Ni·ño, etc), it gets 
> (mistakenly!) attributed to global warming. But when the Great Lakes recently froze over, that got attributed to a 
> one-time "arctic blast". (notice a pattern here?)
>
> Finally, the rate of sea level rise is continuing to rise at the TINY rate of about 3-4 millimeters per year with 
> ZERO sign of acceleration. (yet year after year, we keep seeing new charts and graphs predicting an acute 
> acceleration in the rate of sea level rising, followed by more failed predictions when that continues to NOT happen)
>
> In fact, Global Warming "science" (which is really pseudoscience) is littered with failed predictions and fudged 
> data. That its proponents also want to shut down all debate/discussion about it and declare is as "settled science" - 
> shows that THEY are the ones who believe in THEIR version of religious dogma much more so that the scientific method.
>
> Meanwhile, the "natural" temperature of outer space is -455 degrees F. The ONLY reason we're not all frozen at -455 
> degrees F is due to this ball of fire 8 light minutes from us, that is so massively large that 1.3 millions earths 
> could fit inside of it. To think that tiny changes to such tiny portions of the trace gas C02 (measured in "parts per 
> million"!) could impact climate more so than long-term cyclical sun cycles - is to think that the wind produced from 
> the wings of a nearby fly (or something similarly silly/insignificant) is going to make more of a difference to your 
> comfort as you sit by a camp fire in freezing weather - than, for example, stirring around the logs in that fire.
>
> -- 
> Rob McEwen



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170530123716:39B7DD48-4556-11E7-B306-FE8242EAE6CD
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com