Posted on Sep 17, 2019
Permafrost is thawing rapidly. How much should we worry? » Yale Climate Connections
335
8
5
5
5
0
This is what i don't get, naturally occurring or man made it's happening for real. Yet political positions keep scientists from mentioning, let alone investigating why its happening. How is this good for the country, let alone the world?
Permafrost is thawing rapidly. How much should we worry? » Yale Climate Connections
Posted from yaleclimateconnections.org
Environment
Science
Climate Change
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
1
1
0
Summer? Don't worry, it's almost winter. The climate is shifting, but I'm sick of them blaming humans so they can tax and attempt to regulate human behavior when they can't even decide if Einstein was correct. There are plenty of scientists who are skeptics. The only real value in knowing is understanding both sides, but there is a group of scientists who conjure these issues to get paid with our tax money.
The shifts are natural, they've been happening for tens of thousands of years. NASA quietly put out some studies which debunk AGM climate change and the media turned their collective heads. Since the politicians rely on quid-pro-quo and the media more than they do the "skeptics" they've turned a blind eye also. You have to ask, why. Just look at how much money is reported to come in for these studies and the amounts that would be generated if they could institute a global tax.
Orbital Variations:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php
Big Science is Broken:
https://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken
25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists:
https://youtu.be/EhW-B2udhQw
The shifts are natural, they've been happening for tens of thousands of years. NASA quietly put out some studies which debunk AGM climate change and the media turned their collective heads. Since the politicians rely on quid-pro-quo and the media more than they do the "skeptics" they've turned a blind eye also. You have to ask, why. Just look at how much money is reported to come in for these studies and the amounts that would be generated if they could institute a global tax.
Orbital Variations:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php
Big Science is Broken:
https://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken
25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists:
https://youtu.be/EhW-B2udhQw
The Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch is best known for developing one of the most significant theories relating Earth motions and long-term climate change. He dedicated his career to developing a mathematical theory of climate based on the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation received by the Earth.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
See, you're the problem, it's not humans so nobody needs to scientifically investigate the situation to see why it's happening. The ostrich approach isn't going to help the world.
(0)
(0)
SPC Cody Parker
Had a long response, misclicked and lost it, so you’re stuck with the TL:DR version.
1. Scientists are not rich, we don’t get huge money from our grants, every penny has to be accounted for.
2. Just because there are two sides to an argument does not make the content of said arguments equally valid.
3. Just like with the theory of relativity, the vast majority (97% of papers published which state an opinion) of work agrees that climate change is not only happening, but very likely to be either directly linked or at least exacerbated by human activity. Where people differ is in the minutae of exactly how and to what extent.
4. Finally, you’re absolutely right that the media sucks when it comes to science reporting, even giving the benefit of the doubt (when they don’t deserve it) our work is often reported wrongly, pure and simple.
The biggest issue is on the publishers side, where they charge insane amounts not to just read the papers, but also to publish them in the first place. Scientists don’t get a single penny from this, and indeed are often charged in the 1000s for the privilege of publishing. Essentially, publishing companies effectively block the vast majority of people not associated with universities or research institutes for gaining access to the actual data.
1. Scientists are not rich, we don’t get huge money from our grants, every penny has to be accounted for.
2. Just because there are two sides to an argument does not make the content of said arguments equally valid.
3. Just like with the theory of relativity, the vast majority (97% of papers published which state an opinion) of work agrees that climate change is not only happening, but very likely to be either directly linked or at least exacerbated by human activity. Where people differ is in the minutae of exactly how and to what extent.
4. Finally, you’re absolutely right that the media sucks when it comes to science reporting, even giving the benefit of the doubt (when they don’t deserve it) our work is often reported wrongly, pure and simple.
The biggest issue is on the publishers side, where they charge insane amounts not to just read the papers, but also to publish them in the first place. Scientists don’t get a single penny from this, and indeed are often charged in the 1000s for the privilege of publishing. Essentially, publishing companies effectively block the vast majority of people not associated with universities or research institutes for gaining access to the actual data.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Meteorologists can't predict tomorrow's weather, anyone who has that much faith in them either doesn't understand the scientific method or they want to put food on the table.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions
Thanks go to Tony Heller, who first collected many of these news clips and posted them on RealClimateScience. SUMMARY Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science. More than merely...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google