KenDckey
Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: KenDckey
NOAA’s Climate Data Center says the climate models the scients are using are worng.
http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all?utm_content=buffer6d2c7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full
First, dont take anything from the CATO Institute as 'Legit'. That organization has been caught lying and distorting information more often than not. In comparison, they make FOX 'news' look like a respectable organization for delivering truthful, correct, and honest reporting of information. Most of the information that is given in their 'report' has been dumbed down and removing of the critical pieces of information.
For example: Where do they explain the concept of 'global surface temperature '? The science article doesn't mention it....BECAUSE....its audience is assumed to understand the definitions of concepts found in science. However the 'audience' of the CATO Institute are....NOT....'scients'.....nor 'actual studied scientists'. They are folks like you. Whom have little to no actual scientific background. Whom would not know your being lied to, because they know, you will not check the information out. In other words, they are relying on your ignorance to push their political agendas (often for profit at your expense, ironically enough).
Give the scientific definition of 'Global Surface Temperature'. And how one finds that information out. Not as a 'cut/paste', but in your words.
While your at it, give the definitions to the following: Radiative Forcing, Deep Ocean Heat Uptake, and Atmospheric Circulation Changes. These concepts are all within the first paragraph of the science link. To you, they are just words; to an actual scientist, its meaning of concepts that help explain the nature of the study. In other words, your not going to fully realize the information being given, because you do not have the proper background to understand such information. Your not able to separate the bullshit from the actual information.
How many times does the CATO 'article' link to external information that ties into the subject material? Three times. If this was 7th grade science, that might be acceptable. Likewise the footnotes are not really footnotes, but useless crap. A footnote explains....WHERE.....the information comes from. Unfortunately for the CATO Institute, and fortunately for ACTUAL SCIENCE, the paper has 39 pieces of external information (i.e. footnotes). The depth of information from those sources are pretty extensive. The three links from the CATO 'article' are from 'conservative checked sources'; meaning everything pushes a political ideological argument. Look at the footnote section of the science article, all 39 of them. How many are pushing a 'Liberal Agenda'? None of them. They are scientific journals. Written by actual scientists who know their shit!
Take the word 'Hiatus'. How the science journal is using the word, and the layman's terms of the word, are two different meanings. The CATO 'article' does not distinguish between the two concepts; because that would be honest of them! Or to explain the scientific understanding to the word being used in the science article. Its like the word 'gay'. There are (relatively speaking) two primary uses for the word. The first is to explain 'happiness', while the other is in reference to homosexual people. Its.....HOW...the word is used, that determines the definition of the word being used.
Finally this article by Thomas R. Karl1,*, Anthony Arguez1, Boyin Huang1, Jay H. Lawrimore1, James R. McMahon2, Matthew J. Menne1, Thomas C. Peterson1, Russell S. Vose1, Huai-Min Zhang1, Is the summary and conclusion. It is not the full document of research. Something else the CATO 'article' leaves out on purpose. Notice the number of authors above. Does the CATO 'article' give proper credit to all the authors?
No.......
It uses just 'Karl', because 'Karl', is like 'Karl Marx'. An we all know who 'Karl Marx' is and his 'reputation' by conservatives and libertarians, right? That is.....WHY.....the CATO Institute uses that name. It sounds like a conspiracy, until you realize that is what the CATO Institute is pushing. That some guy named 'Karl' is saying Climate Change is on vacation (i.e. its not happening), and all the scientists are wrong; but doesn't give any evidence to support the claim. But again, the CATO Institute is not trying to tell someone like me this information, but someone like you. An I say this very compassionately and sincerely; your not a scientist nor one with the 'very basic level' of knowledge for this subject. Be very wary of.....ANYTHING....from the CATO Institute.
Joe Just because I added a link from Cato, did you bother to read the article in Science Magazine? They aren't a part of Cato. Additionally, it does say that global warming exists, just at a different rate than is being generally used in models. If that makes Cato wrong, then global warming is wrong.
quote:
Bounty 44
oh and ken, darn you to heck for starting another one of these things!
Sorry Bounty. Was just showing those that sometimes the right agrees with the left.
quote:
Lucylastic
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cato_Institute
Is this the link you were looking. The one where CATO supports global warming?
< Message edited by KenDckey -- 6/5/2015 6:59:32 PM >
|
I know Global Warming Again - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread