So are AGW fear-mongers. What else is new?Schneibster wrote:The Heartland Institute was the one I caught doing incestuous linking with Inhofe; Inhofe makes a ridiculous claim, links to an article on their site as evidence, the article he links to points to a different article on his site, which points to yet another article on their site, which makes the claim without any link to evidence anywhere nor any pointer toward any source whatsoever.Coito ergo sum wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-debate/
He thinks climate change is because "we're recovering from the Little Ice Age," which Media Matters characterizes as like "believing basketballs bounce because they're 'recovering from falling.'" http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111010006?frontpage My only quibble with Media Matters is that it's more like believing basketballs sit on the ground for a few hundred years before they bounce.
This individual is an idiot.
By the way, basketballs do bounce because they are recovering from falling. The vertical acceleration of gravity (or downward force of the player's hand) causes the outer skin of the ball to deform and compress the air inside the ball slightly, absorbing some of the energy of the ball, and the elasticity of the ball and the physics that cause the compressed air to expand the ball back to its round shape because the pressure inside is higher than the pressure outside causes an opposite, but not quite equal force to be applied against the floor by the skin of the ball. This "recovery" of the shape of the ball to its round state after being slightly flattened at the point of contact with the floor forces the ball back upwards in what we call a "bounce." Not that this model has anything whatever to do with the claim they are trying desperately, but delusionally, to rebut.
So, it appears that the Media Matters blog is as full of shit about the physics of basketballs as it is about climate science, which is to say that it's completely full of shit, and so is your "argument" (and I use that term loosely too).
And to top it all off, we are in fact still recovering from the Little Ice Age, and so far none of the temperature excursions we've seen in the unfalsified data falls outside the normal historical range of temperatures we've deduced from the various indirect indicators over the past hundreds of thousands or more of years.
All the IPCC propaganda relies upon PREDICTIONS of what climate temperature MIGHT do in the future, based on extremely inaccurate, unproven, flawed and sometimes completely false climate models that are so inaccurate they can't predict what the temperature will be NEXT WEEK, much less five years from now, much less a century from now.
And the other mendaciously elided fact about all the IPCC climate models is that the margin of error in every single one of them subsumes the "mean" temperature prediction "hockey-stick" bullshit within one year. This means that the plus/minus margin of error in the prediction of a temperature rise exceeds the maximum predicted temperature rise very quickly and keeps right on getting wider and wider the farther out the "prediction" (which is no more accurate than digging through the entrails of sheep or chickens) goes, leaving us with an uncertainty that completely subsumes the "hockey-stick" graph and makes it worse than useless as a guide for public policy. It's not just useless, it's a bald-faced lie of unimaginable proportions, and the evidence is now finally coming out.
That's a dirty little secret that the climate "scientists" (and I use that term very loosely) don't want people to know about or understand, because it completely destroys ALL of their predictions, without exception.
. And then when they come back, they can 
