Using 3rd grade English grammar: Why DO Schmitt & Happer say CO2 has little correlation to global temperature?
Topic: Bad science research articles
July 15, 2019 / By Rosalind Question:
If, in fact, that is the most prominent of their contradictory pseudo-science claims trying to deny the massive evidence behind AGW being a real, significant, mostly negative and serious long term risk to the global economy.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
Gary: Any reason you rule out "both"?
Gary: "Way Stupid Journal" is a good case in point.
George Melloan, WSJ, Sept. 22, 1997: "Global warming is a fantasy...John Christy did his best to defend the IPCC findings when he faced an onslaught of challenges by knowledgeable questioners at a George C. Marshall Institute roundtable in Washington last February...The 'science' behind claims that industrial emissions are warming has always been ephemeral. Only a tiny portion of 'greenhouse gases' are man-made."
Best Answers: Using 3rd grade English grammar: Why DO Schmitt & Happer say CO2 has little correlation to global temperature?
Morgana | 7 days ago
They are either lying or stupid.
>>Gary: Any reason you rule out "both"?<<
Normally I would have included it, but the whole "stupid / liar" thing is a poor description of the pathological cognitive dysfunction of people like Schmitt and Happer. Like their counterparts at the top of the Creationist intellectual pyramid, those who drive the Denier movement are not stupid (quite unlike the rank-and-file Deniers we know all to well who are - plain and simple - stupid, liars, and simpletons (aka stupid liars).
In their WSJ article, Schmitt and Happer are more liars than idiots,
Here is my answer to Cyclops's similar question:
And from the WSJ (which obviously must mean "Way Stupid Journal") article:
>>The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history.<<
This is at best irrelevant, and at worst it fails to mention that it is high by the standards of mammalian - and subsequent human - evolution
>>This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses<<
Yeah, and they also control moisture, humidity, soil chemistry, weeds, insects, and disease.
The article is nothing but a deliberate effort to fuel their political agenda by pouring more shlt into the vacuous heads of idiot Deniers.
👍 102 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? Using 3rd grade English grammar: Why DO Schmitt & Happer say CO2 has little correlation to global temperature?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Bad science research articles
Who knows? No doubt that some responders will say that they have been paid off by the oil industry. But perhaps they just don't want to give up their SUVs.
And why does the fact that Harrison Schmidt worked for NASA make him an expert on climate? I don't recall James Hansen walking on the Moon.
Why does James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt say that CO2 has a strong correlation with temperature?
👍 30 | 👎 3
Without getting a head reading all this and I admire your effort, honest, take a course in statistics. I can correlate the consumption of breakfast cereal to global warming if I wanted to. So someone makes an observation and says A = B. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, is a logical fallacy, After This, Therefore Because of This. Not necessarily true but most thinking is embedded in it now a days.
👍 24 | 👎 -1
Originally Answered: Why won't global warming alarmist measure Mars' increase in temperature?
1. The global temperature on Mars may be increasing, or maybe not. It may be increasing at the South Pole only. It may not be increasing at the North Pole at all. Temperatures on Mars are controlled by dust storms more than any other single factor. If it's warming on earth, does that mean that Mars can't have a dust storm without you getting into a tizzy?
2. If the temperature on Earth and Mars is increasing, but the temperature on Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mercury, and Neptune isn't -- what does that tell you? Anything useful about the cause of Earth's warming? Or not?
3. Name one climate scientist who has refused to study Mars's climate. Just one. Go ask that guy who fed you that line of bull and report back. I'll be waiting.
4. If a scientist did study Mars's climate, and concluded that if it's warming it has nothing to do with our climate on Earth -- would that satisfy you? Or, does the scientist have to come to the conclusion that the climates of Earth and Mars must be linked, before you'll believe it? Do you, like most conservatives, decide on the scientific quality of the answer based on its political implications?