The fourth' ,US Government 2017 Climate Assessment Study ' has been released and even climate experts have called it "...........more exaggeration.... ,....a worse assessment........ the report is a scientific embarrassment .......blatant and absurd conclusions ..........bogus science ........? "
Why is The Heartland Institute in such an uproar over the report . Other than it being "put out by deep State activists within government offices in the federal government "? Why are there 19 scientists there calling this report " bogus science "?
Google; The Heartland Institute .
Bozo Trump can have hallucinations all day long in our oval office but there's still ONLY one thing to say about this topic:
Scientists? Bette Grande is a "research fellow" at the Institute.
"Grande got a B.S. in education and a minor in sports medicine from the University of North Dakota. She has been the Director of Christian Education, a substitute teacher, and an office manager."
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who- … tte-grande
Another "research fellow"? Jesse Hathaway:
"Hathaway received his bachelor's degree from Ohio University, where he majored in English."
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who- … e-hathaway
Wow. These people are real scientists who know climate change.
I actually have a BS in Meteorology Ed. So, you'd likely be better off believing me. But, never mind, I'm a librul.
The reality is, most scientists across the nation are hard working nerds who care about nothing but the truth.
Is there funding coerced bias? Sure is. But, that does't diminish the work of the hundreds of nerds putting their hearts and souls into this report.
Besides, government funded research is way less likely to be biased as there's at the very least a middle man between the industry and the researchers.
I googled it. This is the first thing that came up: “The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank...”
So I think that’s a pretty quick answer to your question.
There are scientists that believe vaccines cause autism despite no evidence to support it, too. Scientists also have their own biases and agendas - the key is that some can build a solid hypothesis and provide evidence that can be replicated in order to support it.... and some cannot.
And what Aime , Only liberal scientists are to be believed ? ..............There's your problem .
Not what I said.
These are 19 scientists. A drop in the bucket. They’re entitled to their thoughts and their criticisms but with a vast majority of scientists on more or less the same page when it comes to climate change, are you under the impression that these are the only 19 conservative scientists that exist?
As usual, you choose to ignore everything and jump to the liberal insult. TDS within the next 5 posts I reckon.
lobobrandon: "TDS" is a fake phony syndrome conservatives like to throw around when faced with irrefutable facts, the real psychological condition which hard sun coined a while back is called "TWD" "Trump Worship Disorder" but thankfully after receiving the Massive BLUE Wave of Righteousness on NOV 6th and looking at Bozo Trump's Rapidly SINKING Gallup Poll Numbers where he's now Up to 60% DISAPPROVAL and DOWN To 38% APPROVAL, I believe these are indicators that say we are now experiencing a pretty substantial "Dump Trump" movement and we can't be surprised about that:
I believe it's 97% of climate scientists who believe global warming is due to human activities and can be mitigated by human activities.
If you visited 100 cardiologists and 97 of them diagnosed heart disease with imminent chance of stroke or death if you do nothing, would you follow their recommendations or would you believe the three percent who tell you there is nothing you can or should do?
I am a frequent Redditer and I was happy to see this trending on the front page: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/com … _bold_and/
Let's all support these 19 scientists when there are 31,487 American Scientists and 9,029 PhDs who support this petition: http://www.petitionproject.org/ as these guys have all been bought by the Democrats. The Republicans need to find ways to raise more money...
Some people only know to point fingers and debate based on opinions without solid facts because science and facts are liberalist things.
"Librul " ? And there you have Hard sun's response , that from a certified meteorologist . People who question such politically inspired studies are stupid conservatives ? Prediction , from Hard sun within the next five responses I won't only be low intelligent I'll be a racist , a bigot and a misogynist for questioning bogus science and scientists .
And your political predictions is about as enlightened as a meteorologist predicting weather will happen .
There's a huge difference between climate and weather. When you chose to follow weather reports you know that they are not accurate and are only predictions. I'm a Phd in fluid dynamics and fluid flow, which is basically what the atmosphere is. Metrologists know their shit saying he does not only reveals the level of ignorance on your part.
Computers aren't powerful enough to work on local weather. Models need to be used and even with the right initial conditions, accurate weather for the next weeks is impossible, close yes, but not accurate, not until supercomputers are lot more powerful. Climate is long-term and it is statistically averaged and hence with the right initial conditions it can be predicted. Read this to learn the basic differences between the two: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa … ather.html
He is right, you bring nothing to this conversation other than the word liberal. You choose to ingore all the facts as always and pick a statement that you can label liberalism from the many facts thrown to you.
If you can solve the Navier Stokes equation which is necessary for the accurate prediction of the weather you will win a million dollars. From your conversations you seem very smart, you can do this. Solve the Navier Stokes equation (one of the 6-millennium prize problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems) and donate the money to the right, so that they can finally get some cash to buy scientists the way the left has them all bought.
So there's no logic in comparing his ability to predict the weather with his political predictions.
I couldn't have stated it better. We cannot yet get the ideal vertical or horizontal resolution for weather models. Also, a better observation network would be helpful. Predicting weather means accounting for model biases, past and recent trends, observations, instinct, etc. etc. I'm not as up on forecasting as I was several years ago. But, to brag a bit, I placed nationally in collegiate weather forecasting competitions. Did I get things wrong? Of course. That's the nature of the science, but it is advancing.
As a trained operational meteorologist, my likelihood of solving the Navier Stokes equation, um, not happening, but I'll go out on a limb and state my chances are still better than Ed's chances. I'm thinking you have the leg up on that field lobobrandon.
Not much has changed other than the fact that LES is a thing people are trying to work with (together with models based on different terrains). Lidars are better used today than they were in the past. I am not sure how long ago you studied this, but they use triangulation a lot to gather data so that it is a lot more accurate than what it would be with just one lidar.
The bulk of my studies ended 15 years ago, but I kept up on it decently for several years after that and am playing catch up now just for the sake of knowing and perhaps writing. The triangulation would definitely help at least some with resolution issues.
Yeah, you don't have to go to a university to be educated on such subjects. It does take discipline and respect for knowledge.
Where and how? In the case of the weather, it is public knowledge that they give you what the models and state of the art of the present day can solve. Political predictions and weather predictions are nowhere related.
I can see why you couldn't comprehend nor understand my post. Without a basic understanding of physics, it would be impossible to understand the functioning of the atmosphere. You're not the only person who's confused, but you are one of the few who refuses to read to learn about a concept.
If it's about the liberals buying the scientists, that is what you keep proclaiming, so I am giving you an opportunity to buy some scientists for yourself. You solving the Navier Stokes equation is as far-fetched as your statements about liberals owning the scientific community.
Moreover, when you solve the Navier Stokes equation you would not just be able to buy other scientists, you'd be one too.
Let me explain ".....Ed's chances ....."
The Fisher Theory of Leftist Hypocrisy , while pseudo intellectuals pretend that they have found all the political fault lines of Trump's job performance through vertical and horizontal meteorology and classroom mathematics puzzle books , you really only prove you know little about any of the above.
As expected you had to bring in liberals and the left because you know nothing else nor do you wish to learn about anything else.
What in God's name is vertical and horizontal meteorology?
You are the one who started this thread and it was based on 19 scientists who used classroom alphabet books (in terms you understand) to study English, yet shout out loud about their strong understanding of the mathematics and physics involved in understanding the climate.
Any educated person (you do not have to go to uni to be educated on a subject) definitely knows a lot more than those nut jobs. Because a regular human is open to learning new stuff.
Aime's reply about a conservative mechanic is spot on.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks. I'm going to leave it at that.
Just an add on here. I saw lobobrandon stating something about if there's a problem, there's many very smart people working on that problem. I think this is what the anti-university, ant-intellectual, Trump crowd often doesn't understand. People put years of work and dedication into a subject.
A dedicated and reasonably competent individual in any field, including all those geo-political gurus, etc. in the State Department, will know much more than a layman. If you went to college you should know this. This is why we must keep qualified individuals in advisory and leadership positions of governments. I fear the damage Trump is bringing on this front will outlast his presidency.
Would Ed hire a mechanic with little knowledge of music to teach him to play piano? I'll hire the mechanic to work on my car and the music professor to teach me an instrument.
Ed would choose to die in a fiery blaze due to faulty mechanics done by a conservative before hiring a capable liberal mechanic, let’s be honest.
Oh thank God ! The TDS expert has finally arrived................
by PeterStip 5 years ago
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate warming up..Why still argue ?There is a 99% Probability that Manmade Emissions Have Caused Climate ChangeWhy do we still debate if there is a climate change at all ?
by Sychophantastic 6 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
by Readmikenow 17 months ago
According to the Washington Examiner, None of the Apocalyptic predictions about the climate and the environment have come true. These are predictions that are recent and some that are decades old.Why are they always wrong?“Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental...
by SportsBetter 6 years ago
Is global warming and climate change an important issue, or is it a hoax?I know there is much talk about climate change issues. I also know that various people profit off of these concerns, and the media certainly promotes theses issues as well. So a question needs to be asked, is...
by ahorseback 2 years ago
I New it ! The era of "political correctness" may finally be maturing into something slightly better ? NOAA having been instrumental in promoting the whole recent Global Warming alarmism may be returning to it's actual day jobof predicting the weather?
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
Downhill...It used to be we can rely on weather forecast accuracy for at least 2 days or so...In recent years, it seems they have lost that skill.The last few snow storms has been either over hyped as the storm of the century...Or under rated...Why can’t they predict rain or snow accurately?A...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|