Meteorological offices around the world are panicking that the Earth has a terrible fever. Year after year, it seems that record temperatures are recorded. The year 2014 is the hottest one on record according to NASA. This should shut up the “climate deniers”!
… or maybe not. In fact, by NASA’s and NOAA’s own admission, there is less than a 50 percent chance that 2014 is the hottest year on record. In addition, this supposed record was beaten by .04°C, which is within the margin of error of .09°C – all of which was very quietly published. Furthermore, responsibles at Berkeley Earth-Soil Temperature (BEST) contradict NASA’s claim as temperatures have been stagnating for about a decade.
This therefore agrees with satellite recordings of temperatures, which show no warming trend for the past 18 years. But even if one agrees with the (fake) hypothesis that there is a catastrophique anthropogenic global warming, models are still running way above actual observations.
Desperately trying to remain relevant
Despite these “inconvenient truths,” warmists prefer to stay withing their Gaia cult. Instead of using science to defend their position, they prefer using insults. If climate skeptics’ arguments were so wrong and lacking substance, they would fall through and be ignored.
Speaking of which, why is so much energy spent on fighting anyone who dissents from the global warming line? Imagine for a moment that I had written, “Five Lies about Evolution.” Notwithstanding the approval of certain Southern Baptists, it would have either been ignored or laughed at, and no evolutionist would have written two rebuttals.
Why? Because creationism/intelligent design has absolutely no scientific basis. As of now, not a single peer-reviewed study has shown any kind of divine influence for life on Earth. And even if it inevitably turns to a dialogue of the deaf, scientists/popularizers do accept “debates” with creationists.
Why is the same thing nearly impossible with respect to climate? Why are warmists putting more energy into questioning the skeptics’ credentials than their arguments? Speaking of which: if I, a polical-economy undergraduate, is not qualified to discuss climate, then why would Al Gore, a politician whose movie has been debunked, David Suzuki, a zoologist who has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about, Bill McKibben, an activist with no apparent scientific background who minimizes corporate donations, and John Cook, an Australian cartoonist who created the 97 percent consensus out of thin air – many scientists denounced his dishonesty – be more qualified?
In short, ignore this nth doomsday prediction. Despite what the “other side” claims, climate science is far from settled. Instead of using ad hominem attacks and data from organizations (like NOAA), whose livelihood depends on the maintaining of the climate hysteria, try finding solid arguments to support your hypothesis. Re-writing the past will become harder and harder with modern technology.