Post by Bret CahillPost by Chom NoamskyPost by Bret Cahill"You should have seen the multi year heat spans back in the Big Banglocene!"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/06/12/the-u-s-just-observed-its-warmest-3-4-and-5-year-spans-on-record/
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again
been caught exaggerating by fiddling with the raw temperature data
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/02/20/noaa-caught-adjusting-usas-big-freeze-out-of-existence-fiddling-with-the-raw-temperature-data/
Tell Pruitt to give _that_ to the judge.
Just don't mention my name.
I don't want to get tossed into the pokey along with Scott!
Don't wirry. Brietbart has the evidence train will in hand.
It'll be the sefl-contradictory guff we see re-paraded on these fora daily.
The judge *will* be impressed -- just not in the way the admin would like.
--
Exxon Senior Scientist James F. Black (1978):
In the first place,
there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in
which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon
dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels. A doubling of carbon
dioxide is estimated to be capable of increasing the average global
temperature by from 1 [degree] to 3 [degrees Celsius], with a 10
[degrees Celsius] rise predicted at the poles. More research is
needed, however, to establish the validity and significance of
predictions with respect to the Greenhouse Effect. It is currently
estimated that mankind has a 5-10 yr. time window to obtain the
necessary information.
Exxon Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory Director Roger
W. Cohen (1982):
[O]ver the past several years a clear scientific
consensus has emerged regarding the expected climatic effects of
increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is that a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result
in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 [plus-or-minus] 1.5)
[degrees Celsius]. The uncertainty in this figure is a result of the
inability of even the most elaborate models to simulate climate in a
totally realistic manner. ... [T]he results of our research are in
accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased
atmospheric CO2 on climate.
Exxon Environmental Affairs Programs Manager M.B. Glaser (1982):
Predictions of the climatological impact of a carbon dioxide induced
"greenhouse effect" draw upon various mathematical models to gauge the
temperature increase. The scientific community generally discussed the
impact in terms of doubling of the current carbon dioxide content in
order to get beyond the noise level of the data. We estimate doubling
could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements
projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook. The question of which
predictions and which models best simulate a carbon dioxide-induced
climate change is still being debated by the scientific community. Our
best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could
increase average global temperature by about 1.3 [degrees Celsius] to
3.1 [degrees Celsius].
Exxon Climate Modeler Brian Flannery And New York University Professor
Martin Hoffert (1985): Consensus CO2 Warming: Transient climate models
currently available, when run with standard scenarios of fossil fuel
CO2 emissions, indicate a global warming of the order of 1 [degree
Celsius] by the year 2000, relative to the year 1850, and an
additional 2-5 [degrees Celsius] warming over the next
century. However, the sensitivity of such predictions to known
uncertainties of the models -- that is, the robustness of CO2 warming
predictions -- has not yet been extensively explored.
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/10/exxon-is-trying-to-whitewash-its-
climate-change/206763>