I don't think even her stupidity could cause that much damage if put in charge of a nation. Although if you throw her husband into the mix it might be close.
Strange how there is an obsession with immigration. Yes it is a problem, and a potentially serious one, but there are far more important issues than that. Why is there much less focus (media at least) on energy security and climate change? Too hard to solve? Upsets too many people?
.........and what about those that warn of an Asteroid hitting Earth and wiping out human life in the not too distant future ?
There is a huge amount of independent Data out there to suggest that the Earth is actually cooling and that we are close to the next Ice Age which is now due!
The climate is changing. There is evidence that the poles are melting etc. We have legal obligations to reduce CO2 emissions. Regardless of that energy security is a hugely pressing issue. No?
I was torn between the science-based answer in the hope that I'm debating with an open-minded individual. If that fails, then perhaps I'll descend to vitriol. Some scientific papers may report a decrease/slowing increase in the temperature of the land and atmosphere of our planet, but that neglects the major energy store on this planet - the ocean, as can be seen here: please log in to view this image You can also see from this graph how selective reporting can be used to suggest cooling, and also how much more significantly the ocean temperatures are changing compared to that of the land and atmosphere. 90% of the effect of global warming goes into heating the oceans, whilst less than 3% goes into heating the surface and atmosphere. If you look just at surface temperatures, then yes you'll see that 1998 was the hottest year on record. This was caused by an abnormally strong El Nino, which resulted in greater than usual transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere. Since then, the effects of El Nino have been more moderate, resulting in global cooling of air temperatures. But as you can see from the difference in contributions from atmospheric warming and ocean warming, to base an entire argument on atmosphere temperatures would be misleading. It gets more interesting if you filter out the effects of El Nino through data analysis. You end up with the graph below, where each line represents a different measurement methodology of global land or atmosphere temperatures: please log in to view this image You can clearly see here how short-term or selective reporting can be used to make catchy headlines (eg the raw UAH data shows lower temperatures in 2008 compared to 1980, and the big peak in 1998), but the overall trend is still for increasing temperatures. With regards the ice-age argument, there's also data to refute that, which I'm more than happy to go into if you'd like me to. If you want a simple summary though, without Anthropogenic Global Warming, the transition into an ice age will take several hundred, more likely several thousand years. Any effects of that will be vastly outweighed by the more pressing impacts of Global Warming. I don't like using "appeal to authority"-type arguments, but I'll give it a shot. A very cleverly designed (personal opinion) peer-reviewed paper analysed the level of agreement within the scientific community on global warming. In both approaches, 97% of scientists publishing in the area of Climate Change agree that humans are responsible for global warming. Furthermore, other work has shown that the greater the expertise of a scientist in the field of climate science, the more likely they are to agree with global warming. There is an obvious argument here that those "brave researchers" battling away to prove the 97% wrong are just being shouted down by the majority, but that's simply not how science works. Firstly, if any scientist produced seriously credible data/mechanisms that oppose global warming, they would be desperate to publish it, as it'd make their careers. Secondly, the peer-review process can only slow down/prevent articles being published on scientific grounds, not because the reviewers just don't like the paper. If anyone had produced the kind of data that would make scientists seriously consider their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming, then it'd be massive news and you'd quickly see a change of opinion within the scientific community. Quantum mechanics is an excellent example of a mass change of opinion within the scientific community. Once credible data is published in support of a theory, there is a massive rush to either replicate the results, or disprove the conclusions. Max Planck (for those not aware of the name, he was a Nobel-prize winning, incredibly famous/influential scientist) loathed the idea of Quantum Mechanics, and spent years trying to prove it false, but in doing so in fact laid a lot of the foundations that supported the idea. Einstein however struggled to accept the theory, and almost entered a self-imposed exile from the general scientific community by refusing to use the ideas in his work. To bring this back to climate change, if there was a shred of credible evidence that the whole idea was wrong, there would be huge effort within the scientific community to "piggy-back" the idea and use it in their own work, as being an early-adopter would bring massive career benefits, and failure to adopt could effectively end a career. You'll notice the 97% argument does not exclude all the scientific literature, which means that yes there are 3% of research/researchers who are either neutral or disagree with anthropogenic global warming. I would love to see (and I believe such work is ongoing) an analysis of the quality of the research of that 3% versus the 97%, as I suspect like in the survey of scientists opinion, the quality of the science in the 97% would be significantly higher than that in the 3%. Happy to take any questions.
I've got a scientific mind and like data, which is probably why I suck at politics as there's often more to it than data and facts. Science is much more my forte (which is good seeing as it's my job!), and in a field utterly dominated by data and logic, I don't like it being misrepresented. If anyone manages to learn something (I appreciate my waffle isn't the easiest to understand), then at least it's had some kind of point rather than me just ranting to make myself feel like I've tried.
Fair play mate, I was just having a laugh. I program food processing systems that integrate with yield and accounting systems. Also design recipe systems for large scale food production so I do get the logic a bit.
Climategate 2.0 Here they even discuss the temperature drops mean they have to change from Global warming to a new name, "man made climate change was born"... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...obal-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/ NOAA and NASA caught red handed altering previous charts of historical temperature data to show the past colder in order to make the present look warmer. unfortunately for NOAA and NASA they put up the new chart 8 days before they took down the old chart. For 8 days both charts were available to the public. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/ Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend. here is a gif of the data alteration Old chart-new chart please log in to view this image The hottest day in recorded history is 1922 Annual heatwave index. Doesn't make sense if we are contantly heating up.. unless you take start the fallacy from that low point in the 50s onwards The EPA still shows that heatwaves during the 1930s were by far the worst in US temperature record. So, the EPA still has the original data that refutes the NASA NOAA altered data in 2000 please log in to view this image
