[Environment] You Can't Smell the Global Warming BS Without a Scorecard
Is there really a relationship between Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases? Sure, there's a lot of talk, but when I listen to scientists, I either get healthy skepticism about it (along with a suggestion that a methodical collection of data would be really useful), or a lot of handwaving and airy refutations along the lines of "everyone knows that's so."
Most of the latter don't even realize the Number One greenhouse gas is DMHO, nor do they advocate a plan for dealing with DMHO and its impact on the environment.
Penn and Teller have a better term for the latter kind of science. However, it takes soothing, calm words backed with facts to counter the output of powerful media machines.
There is some useful science going on. One analysis presents major claims by Global Warming/Greenhouse Gas advocates, goes back to the models and data, and from that, created a Greenhouse Warming Scorecard
Most of the latter don't even realize the Number One greenhouse gas is DMHO, nor do they advocate a plan for dealing with DMHO and its impact on the environment.
Penn and Teller have a better term for the latter kind of science. However, it takes soothing, calm words backed with facts to counter the output of powerful media machines.
There is some useful science going on. One analysis presents major claims by Global Warming/Greenhouse Gas advocates, goes back to the models and data, and from that, created a Greenhouse Warming Scorecard
{snip}Using a Win-Loss-Tie (or W-L-T) scoring system, we estimate the record is 3-27-5 for the greenhouse warming hypothesis, which is a poor record. The three items that seemed to be positive (receding glaciers, decreasing snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and stratospheric cooling) are heavily publicized without much mention of the other items..... As our "Greenhouse Warming Scorecard" shows, the IPCC models are false in many ways.{snip}