What Fresh Hell Is This?

June 24, 2019

Meanwhile, Outside...

From the climate scientists at NOAA:
The global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average for May 2019 was the fourth highest for the month of May in the 140-year NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back to 1880. The March–May temperature was second highest, and the January–May temperature was the third highest such period on record.
Specifically:
The May temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.53°F above the 20th century average of 58.6°F and was the fourth highest for May in the 1880–2019 record. The last five years (2015–2019) are the five warmest Mays on record, with May 2016 the warmest with a global land and ocean temperature at 1.67°F above average.
And from a non-scientist very high up in the Trump administration, we get this:
Vice President Mike Pence on Sunday wouldn't say if he views the global climate crisis as a threat to the United States.

Pence repeatedly dodged when asked multiple times on CNN's "State of the Union" whether the human-induced crisis is a threat to the country, telling host Jake Tapper: "Well, what I will tell you is that we'll always follow the science on that in this administration."
Specifically:
When pressed again on whether he believes the climate crisis is a threat, Pence said, "I think the answer to that is going to be based upon the science."

"Well the science says yes," Tapper said. "I'm asking you what you think."

"Well, there's many in the science that debate that," Pence said.
Define "many" please.

Especially in the context of this from NASA:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
That footnote leads here. Where you can find this paragraph:
The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
So "many" needs to be explained. 

I suppose of you surveyed a thousand climate scientists and found that only 97% said they agreed with the science, that would leave 30 dissenting scientists, And I further suppose that you could say that 30 = "many".  I mean ask a kindergarten teacher of 30 five year olds constitute "many" or "few" and you'll see what I mean.

It still ignores (willfully, of course) the 97% who agree.

It's getting warmer outside no matter what Trump and his GOP say.

2 comments:

Zeus0209 said...

Even if you're too arrogant to accept the SCIENCE!, perhaps you're smart enough to recognize the absolute danger of sitting back on our a$$es while our adversaries capitalize on opportunity.

Crude must be pumped, coal must be excavated and gas must be piped; all bound for additional refinement. Solar panels produce electricity on site. Wind and water turn vanes to produce energy on site. That efficiency alone eliminates an entire phase in the energy harvesting process. Further, the raw materials needed are cost free and abundant. The most proficient entity (Germany, Russia, China, the U.S., etc.) to master this efficiency will be leaps and bounds above the rest of the playing field. It is achievable, prudent, progressive and visionary to our future and survival. Alternative energy needs to be our focus, and now. It is lazy and myopic to sit back and not view the energy race from this perspective.

High Lord Inquisitor and Factchecker of 2PJ. said...

When asked for the samples and data for the study that proves 97.2% of scientists are part of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change consensus, Cooke said the data is not available because of academic privacy.