+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst 1 11 12 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 232

Thread: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

  1. Link to Post #201
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    59,946
    Thanked 94,679 times in 15,439 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    KNIGHT: A court victory for common sense

    by Leo Knight
    August 23, 2019


    Lost in the news was the successful victory by Dr. Tim Ball, a retired University of Winnipeg professor, in a defamation lawsuit brought against him

    Lost in the news yesterday, or perhaps more accurately, not covered in the news by the mainstream media yesterday, was the successful victory by Dr. Tim Ball, a retired University of Winnipeg professor, in a defamation lawsuit brought against him by the notoriously thin-skinned Michael Mann of the infamous and thoroughly debunked ‘hockey stick’ theory related to global warming.

    This is the second lawsuit successfully defended by Dr. Ball. The first was dismissed last year in which B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver sued for defamation and lost. Apparently, in the courts, the truth is still an absolute defence.

    And so it proved in the lawsuit brought by Penn State prof Michael Mann as decided by B.C. Courts this week.

    Dr. Ball is called a cynic or a denier deemed so by the worshipers of the religion of climate change. All he has done is merely point out the holes in their arguments and apparently they get all snitty about that.

    If you don’t believe as they do you’re the devil.

    A denier.

    A word correlated to those who deny the Holocaust as though if you don’t accept the religion of climate change you’re the same as the racists who deny the Holocaust.

    Dr. Mann was exposed for manipulating the data he used to create the so-called hockey stick graph. And no amount of protesting he may do will change that.

    Why he is still employed at Penn State is a mystery. There’s a significant credibility issue surrounding his work as upheld by the courts. Dr. Ball, tongue in cheek, said he should be in the state pen as opposed to Penn State.

    The problem is that things like the hockey stick graph, no matter that it has been debunked, is at the heart of our political policy and legislation like the carbon tax.

    And the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, won’t brook any dissension. Neither will the recently rescued from career oblivion after his resignation in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, Gerald Butts, who calls anyone who disagrees a nazi.

    I am not a scientist. I am but an old ex-cop and investigator who looks for evidence before coming to a conclusion in matters. And that evidence does not support the position of McKenna or the government. Nor does it support any reason to impose a carbon tax on the economy which is punitive at a time our economy should be flourishing along with that of our largest trading partner.

    But the Prime Minister and the rest of the Liberal government are true believers despite the evidence to the contrary.

    I’m sure that the fact that Butts is a former executive leading the eco-loons at the World Wildlife Foundation plays a role. He believes what he believes and no amount of evidence will sway his opinions. Unfortunately, his opinions, however wrong, have dire consequences on the country as a whole.

    Good on Dr. Ball for standing up to the eco-loons. Pity the media would rather spout the government nonsense rather than cover the result of an actual court case.

    Last edited by Hervé; 25th August 2019 at 12:34.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Alan (19th October 2019), avid (25th August 2019), Bill Ryan (26th August 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Cara (25th August 2019), Franny (25th August 2019), kfm27917 (10th October 2019), mountain_jim (26th August 2019), onevoice (9th October 2019), Reinhard (16th October 2019), Tintin (25th August 2019), Valerie Villars (26th August 2019)

  3. Link to Post #202
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    59,946
    Thanked 94,679 times in 15,439 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    ...

    A more in-depth analysis of the intentionally designed fraud:


    Climate fraud justice: Dr Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann's climate lawsuit!

    John O'Sullivan Principia Scientific
    Fri, 23 Aug 2019 06:54 UTC



    Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann's defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.


    The Canadian court issued it's final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball's libel lawyers.

    The plaintiff Mann's "hockey stick" graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an "unprecedented" spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability.

    Skeptics have long claimed Mann's graph was fraudulent.

    On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing:

    "Michael Mann's Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning By The BC Supreme Court And They Awarded Me [Court] Costs."

    A more detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.

    Professor Mann is a climate professor at Penn State University. Mann filed his action on March 25, 2011 for Ball's allegedly libelous statement that Mann "belongs in the state pen, not Penn State." The final court ruling, in effect, vindicates Ball's criticisms.

    Previously, on Feb, 03, 2010, a self-serving and superficial academic 'investigation' by Pennsylvania State University had cleared Mann of misconduct. Mann also falsely claimed the NAS found nothing untoward with his work.

    But the burden of proof in a court of law is objectively higher.

    Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball's application for dismissal of the 8-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball.

    This extraordinary outcome will likely trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to alarmist climate science claims that modern temperatures are "unprecedented."

    According to the leftist The Guardian newspaper (Feb, 09, 2010), the wider importance of Mann's graph over the last 20 years is massive:
    "Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else - a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics."
    Under court rules, Mann's legal team have up to 30 days to file an appeal. For readers interested in accessing the court website directly, use this link.

    'Hockey Stick' Discredited by Statisticians in 2003
    In 2003 a Canadian study showed the "hockey stick" curve "is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components." When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.

    So, the graph was junk science. You could put baseball scores into Mann's Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.

    But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?

    No one could answer that question unless Mann surrendered his numbers. He was never going to do that voluntarily - or face severe consequences for not doing so - that is, until Dr Ball came into the picture!

    Evidence in Legal Discovery and the Truth Defense
    Dr Ball's legal team adroitly pursued the 'truth defense' such that the case boiled down to whether Ball's words ("belongs in the state pen, not Penn State") after examining the key evidence (Mann's R2 regression numbers) fairly and accurately portrayed Mann.

    The aim was to compel the plaintiff (Dr. Mann) to show his math 'working out' to check if he knowingly and criminally misrepresented his claims by resorting to statistical fakery (see: 'Mike's trick' below).

    In the pre-trial Discovery Process the parties are required to surrender the cited key evidence in reasonable fashion, that they believe proves or disproves the Claim.

    Despite Ball's best efforts over 8 years, Mann would not agree to surrender to an open court his math 'working out' - those arcane R2 regression numbers for his graph (see Mann's latest obfuscating Tweet in the 'update' at foot of this article).

    But throughout 2017 and 2018 any reasonable observer could see through such endless delays from the plaintiff - all just attritional tactics.

    The Penn State professor had persistently refused to honor the binding "concessions" agreement he made to Ball which ultimately gave his legal team the coup de grace to win the case for the defendant due to Mann's 'Bad Faith' (see: legal definition here).

    Dr. Ball always argued that those numbers, if examined in open court, would have conclusively proved Mann was motivated to commit a criminal fraud. It was at this point legal minds could discern Ball was closing in on victory - a triumph for 'David over Goliath.'

    And Mann certainly is a science 'Goliath.' Ever since featuring so famously in the UN IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) Mann's graph has been an iconic image cited relentlessly by environmentalists clamoring for urgent action on man-made global warming.

    For the past two decades the biased mainstream media has acclaimed Mann as "a world-leading climate scientist" and last year he was heralded as their champion to help dethrone "climate denier" President Trump.



    Indeed, not just a fawning MSM, but many hundreds of subsequent climate studies have relied on Mann's findings. Mann's reputation was such, that most climate researchers merely accepted his graph, a typical example of groupthink.

    Dr Ball has long warned that if the world was permitted to see behind the secrecy they would be shocked at just how corrupt and self-serving are those 'scientists' at the forefront of man-made global warming propaganda.

    As anyone can tell by contrasting and comparing the graphs below (Mann's version top, Ball's below) it is obvious there exists a massive discrepancy in the respective findings.



    Above: contrast and compare Dr Mann's dodgy graph with Dr Ball's more reliable version (based on that of the renowned H. H. Lamb) and see how Mann fraudulently altered the proxy climate date with a 'hockey stick' shape to falsely show the dramatic uptick with modern temperatures rising 'catastrophically' to fit the fake UN IPCC doomsaying narrative.

    Have Skeptics Ever Proven that Mann's Graph was Deliberately Faked?
    Answer: No. This is because Mann has always refused to release his R2 regression numbers for independent examination.

    He claimed his secrecy was justified because he held "proprietary rights" over them (i.e. personally valuable intellectual work product, you see). So "valuable" to Mann was the secrecy of his metadata that losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit and his reputation was the ultimate price he was prepared to pay.


    While steep, I guess, that's preferable to serving a long federal prison stretch, right?

    Before Ball's glorious court victory, little more could be conclusively proven other than the hockey stick graph uptick stupidly (and unscientifically) relies on the proxy evidence from the tree rings of a single Yamal larch!

    Mann could thus sleep safe in the knowledge that as long as statistical experts remain deprived of any conclusive proof of his intent to defraud, they could only find him guilty of incompetence.

    Putting Mann's Fraudulent Graph Under the Microscope
    For an easy-viewing summary by Tim Ball please watch the video:

    Mann's goal was to make the Little Ice Age (LIA) disappear, as we explained in our previous article on this issue. The LIA was an especially cold era that ended around 1840 and since then global temperatures have gradually risen. But government 'experts' like Mann have sought to use statistical trickery to make such natural variation appear as 'man-made' warming.

    Apart from playing with statistics Mann made his proxy fit the thermometer data by adding thermometer values to the proxy values known as "Mike's trick" in the climate gate email scandal.

    From the emails released during the Climategate scandal Professor Phil Jones, Britain's top climate scientist at the University of East Anglia was shown to have written the following to his alarmist colleagues (some analysis here).

    The email, sent by Prof Phil Jones of the CRU in 1999, states:
    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years
    (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
    1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil
    This has the Hockey Stick Graph showing the same cooling from 1942 to 1975 as the HadCRUT3 data as posted in the IPCC 2001 AR3






    In 1942 there was just 4.0Gt of emissions increasing to 17.1Gt by 1975 but since this 425% increase in CO2 emissions didn't cause any global warming during this 33 year period; the conjecture of CO2 emissions induced (catastrophic) global warming was proven false.

    Readers interested in gaining a deeper understanding of what is likely to eventually be exposed as a criminal conspiracy between Mann and other 'elite' researchers should see "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford.


    The Guardian newspaper (above) expressing doubts over '(Michael) Mann-made' global warming.

    Victory that Comes at Great Personal Cost
    Behind the scenes, gathering the resources, mental, scientific and financial, there is an untold burden of defending these cynical SLAPP suits.

    Lest readers forget, it is mostly in the service of misguided public policy, with massive funding and connivance from political operators in play, that fake scientists like Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver acquired such esteemed public positions.

    They are not only despicable human beings they are a disgrace to all decent scientists.

    Readers will be aware that this author has been a staunch friend and ally to Tim throughout the hardships of this protracted 8-year legal battle.

    Our reputations were routinely trashed by our enemies, so it is sweet justice that the court has now given legal credence to Tim's famous words that Michael Mann "belongs in the state pen, not Penn State," a comical reference to the fraudulent 'hockey stick' graph that knowledgeable scientists knew to be fakery.
    [Author Note: Being very much a party to these legal proceedings (having provided Dr Ball with the financial security of a legally-binding indemnity in the event Tim lost) it is a monumental vindication of my faith in Tim's cause. In effect, I 'bet the farm' on Tim winning, as graciously reported by Jo Nova (below)]
    Knowingly Fraudulent and Corrupt
    During 2018, while Tim Ball's hard work was winning "concessions" from Mann's legal team in Canada, south of the border, (on April 20) a shameless Mann wrote in Scientific American this utter nonsense:
    "Yet, in the 20 years since the original hockey stick publication, independent studies, again and again, have overwhelmingly reaffirmed our findings, including the key conclusion: recent warming is unprecedented over at least the past millennium."
    Gullible and brainwashed greens and the many self-serving politicians swallowed up this garbage.

    Dr Ball Expresses Gratitude to Principia Scientific International
    Speaking in this 2018 video on the gravity of what some scientists have called "The science trial of the Century," Dr Ball revealed his gratitude to his colleagues at Principia Scientific:

    Dr Tim Ball:
    I know John O'Sullivan who set up the Principia site and I know I wrote a foreword and a chapter in one of the books they produced called Slaying the Sky Dragon.

    John O'Sullivan comes from his anti-government [stance], very legitimately and unfortunately, it's not until you've actually directly personally experienced that; challenging the government - that you realize how nasty they can get. So John knows very well how nasty these things can get - that anyone that dares to challenge the authorities.

    And so, Principia was set up for that reason, and John was the one that helped me set up the PayPal so people could help me financially so, that's my disclaimer with that."
    As Jo Nova reported on the joannenova.com.au blog:

    "John O'Sullivan is putting in above and beyond what any single skeptical soul ought to.

    He's already been a key figure helping Tim Ball in the legal fight with the UVA establishment, which has spent over a million dollars helping Michael Mann to hide emails. The case was launched by Michael Mann, but could turn out to do a huge favor to skeptics — the discovery process is a powerful tool, and we all know who has been hiding their methods, their data, and their work-related correspondence.

    Tim Ball and John O'Sullivan are helping all the free citizens of the West. The burden should not be theirs alone. There are many claims for help at the moment, but that is a sign that the grand scam is coming to a head. Jo"
    Two out of Two Major Court Wins By Ball Versus Junk IPCC Scientists
    Dr Ball, now affirmed as a courageous champion of honest science, has assured his place in the annals of real climate science. His gift to the world was sacrificing eight of his senior years, when he could have been enjoying his retirement, to exposing key players in the biggest science fraud of all time.

    People too easily forget Dr Ball has defeated in expensive legal battles not just one top UN IPCC climate scientists, but two!

    This latest victory is the second this champion of climate skepticism has enjoyed in the last 18 months in this same jurisdiction - both for "defamation," both multi-million dollar climate science claims.



    We reported (February 15, 2018) on Dr Ball's first crucial courtroom win against Dr Andrew Weaver (photo, above), another elite junk scientist (a UN IPCC Lead Author in climate modeling) and British Columbia Green Party Leader.

    Pointedly, at the time, Dr Ball wanted to emphasize an extremely salient fact:
    "While I savor the victory, people need to know that it was the second of three lawsuits all from the same lawyer,Roger McConchie, (photo, left) in Vancouver on behalf of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
    In effect, there is more than mere coincidence that Dr Ball, a world-leading skeptical climatologist, was systematically targeted for legal retribution time and again by political groups such as the unscrupulous Climate Science Legal Defense Fund .

    As a retired scientist in his 80's, Tim was a 'soft target' and the stress of these lawsuits put an enormous toll on his health.

    Not to be outdone, Tim has used his time wisely to write a damning book of the 30-year back story of the great climate fraud titled 'The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science' and I heartily recommend that interested readers buy it.

    It is also not often reported that the funding in Canada for these extravagant SLAPP lawsuits is believed to be from the David Suzuki Foundation, a hot house for extreme environmental advocacy and Big Green policy promotion.

    What is a 'Strategic lawsuit against public participation' (SLAPP Suit)?
    Wikipedia offers a fair definition:
    "A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

    In the typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate."
    Update (August 24, 2019):Dr Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article:



    Mann's statement is here: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/sta...10044414189568

    In short, Mann's ugly responsive legal statement is (a) stark admission he lost fair and square, and (b) a disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann's "delay" in not submitting his R2 numbers in timely fashion.

    Well, Mikey, You Are The Plaintiff And Tim Gave You Over 8 YEARS To Get Your Case Together!

    On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article 'Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael 'Hockey Stick' Mann' (July 4, 2017). In it we offered analysis as to Mann's fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:
    "Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline."
    As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.

    AN APPEAL
    Assisting Dr Ball has been a huge honor for me and probably one of the greatest achievements of my life. But Tim only won this famous courtroom battle thanks to massive worldwide grassroots support.

    We can only continue to fight these protracted lawsuits with your kind support. Please give generously to ensure we can take on more crucial cases, such as this.

    ======================================

    Quote "Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else - a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists ["stage magicians"] and their critics."
    See The Guardian psy-op?... the fraudsters are qualified as "scientists" whereas their critics have their qualifications left out... to omit the fact that those critics are actual, real, true scientists.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  4. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Alan (19th October 2019), avid (26th August 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (31st October 2019), Bill Ryan (26th August 2019), bluestflame (28th September 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Cara (26th August 2019), mountain_jim (26th August 2019), onevoice (9th October 2019), silvanelf (29th August 2019), Tintin (26th August 2019), what is a name? (10th September 2019)

  5. Link to Post #203
    UK Moderator and Librarian Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,420
    Thanks
    13,784
    Thanked 9,002 times in 1,402 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Thanks Hervé

    Here's a handy link where you can see the internal exchanges at UEA/CRU from a select 250 very revealing email exchanges: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/...te-2-0-emails/

    I'm hunting around to try and locate the leaked emails (from 2009) and have found our good friends at Wikileaks have been, as ever, on the ball.

    Link: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_...els,_1996-2009
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  6. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Alan (19th October 2019), avid (26th August 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (31st October 2019), Bill Ryan (26th August 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Cara (26th August 2019), Hervé (26th August 2019), silvanelf (29th August 2019)

  7. Link to Post #204
    UK Moderator and Librarian Tintin's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2017
    Location
    Trowbridge/Bath - UK
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,420
    Thanks
    13,784
    Thanked 9,002 times in 1,402 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    From Steven F. Hayward's presentation at Hillsdale College in 2014 and well worth a listen:
    @16:07 - "The result of the latest catalog of exaggerated claims and appalling clichés is, you know, it's endless, but the most egregious one is one that I'm sure many of you have heard of or seen on T.V. It's the ubiquitous refrain that 97% of all scientists believe in climate change. By the way, they even use that word; believe, like it's an article of religious faith, which I think is also a curious thing. And it's not just climate advocates. NASA, a federal government agency, says ... they have a web page that says, that phrase, 97% of scientists believe in climate change.

    That's our government speaking, now.

    And, of course, the political suggestion behind this is, if 97% of scientists believe in climate change, then, therefore, they must all agree with the environmentalist agenda to suppress energy.

    So, where did this 97% figure come from? When you explore its lineage, it turns out to be about as convincing as a Chicago election.

    No, you can't believe that, right? ...

    The most prominent form of it comes from a paper by a professor in Australia named John Cook at the University of Queensland, and he published this paper in an obscure journal, and it's just rocketed around and it's become the big thing.

    And what this study purported to do was review the abstracts of 11,000 climate science articles. Now, just stop right there. It's important they say, abstracts. No one's going to read 11,000 climate articles. Even a whole team of graduate students is not going to read through 11,000 science articles.

    So they read the abstracts, fair enough. The abstract is always that one paragraph summary at the head of any academic journal article.

    Well, here's the abstract to the Cook paper, which no one in the media seems to have the wit to read for themselves. First sentence: "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming, comma." I'll stop right there. Two thirds--66%--two thirds of the papers express no opinion on human-caused global warming. Let's keep going.

    Thirty-two point six percent endorsed anthropogenic global warming. Zero point seven percent rejected it and 0.3% were uncertain. Okay. So that means a third of those papers had an opinion on human-caused global warming. So, the next sentence says this:

    "Among abstracts expressing a position on human-caused global warming, 97.1% endorse the consensus positions that humans are causing the warming."

    Somehow this has become 97% of all scientists, when it's 97% of a third of scientists. Or, you might put it this way: you could just as easily say, 66% of scientists publishing in the field have expressed no firm opinion on the matter.

    Or, still another way to think about it is, this is the grandfather of all simple-minded tautologies.

    Among all the scientists who agree with the consensus, are all the scientists who agree with the consensus.

    That would be an adequate way of saying it.

    Now, initially Professor Cook refused to share the data with anybody else to how they've been coded, and, what have they matched up. That's always a bad sign right there, isn't it? But, of course, in the modern world, with things planted on internet databases, somebody found the data.

    And, lo and behold, some of the articles turned out to be not really about climate science at all. One article that was billed as a science article was about U.S. media coverage of climate change issues. Strangely, in those 11,000 papers, there's not a single one from Richard Lindzen of M.I.T.

    He's the most prominent skeptic in the climate science community, who has been publishing on the subject since 1961. None of his papers were included, somehow. And yet, this phrase ... I mean, you can't go anywhere now without seeing it or, you know, get on the center for climate progress without seeing that 97% of scientists agree. Or believe in, right? Well, it's clear that the climate establishment has become as narrowly intolerant as any department of gender studies on a college campus, and for much the same reason. What this really masks is a will to power, as I said at the beginning
    A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Global Warming

    Last edited by Tintin; 3rd September 2019 at 13:51.
    “If a man does not keep pace with [fall into line with] his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” - Thoreau

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Tintin For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (9th September 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Hervé (3rd September 2019), onevoice (9th October 2019), T Smith (8th September 2019)

  9. Link to Post #205
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    59,946
    Thanked 94,679 times in 15,439 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    ... worth a listen...
    How to Destroy the Climate Change Hoax
    TFP Student Action
    Published on Aug 12, 2019

    Celebrities, activists, environmentalist organizations, the UN, government entities and sadly, even the Vatican support the theory that humans cause climate change. However, in this exclusive interview, “global warming” expert and author Marc Morano gives you hard-hitting arguments and facts that dispel the artificial fear propagated by “climate emergency” alarmists.

    Marc Morano talks about:

    #Climate #change (min 2:58)

    Population control (min 14:24)

    Global warming (min 17:12)

    Medieval warm period (min 19:37)

    Best arguments against climate change (min 33:03)

    The fake 97% scientific consensus (min 34:17)

    The Green New Deal (min 38:23)

    Pope Francis and Laudato Si (min 48:11 )

    Socialism and environmentalism (min 51:27)

    His book, Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (min 57:38)

    Download show audio: https://tfpsa.podbean.com/


    More on this topic:

    Green Is the New Red https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog...

    Site: https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tfpstudenta...

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TFPStudentAc...

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/tfpsa

    Get TFP updates: https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/sign...

    Attributions: Sneaky Snooper by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...)

    Artist: http://audionautix.com/
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  10. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (31st October 2019), Bill Ryan (9th September 2019), bluestflame (28th September 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), edina (9th September 2019), Ernie Nemeth (9th September 2019), Michi (26th September 2019), onevoice (23rd October 2019), Richard S. (11th September 2019), Sammy (9th September 2019), Star Mariner (11th September 2019), Tintin (9th September 2019)

  11. Link to Post #206
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    59,946
    Thanked 94,679 times in 15,439 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Armstrong: Climate Change Has Been A Routine Scare Tactic Since The 1930s

    by Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/10/2019 - 05:00

    QUESTION: Is there a pattern?

    May 1932




    July 1932




    May 1947




    Feb 1969




    April 1994



    * * *

    ANSWER: For whatever reason, these people have been promoting that the cities will all sink and we are the cause of it all.



    They have been touting this scenario since the 1930s when there was the Dust Bowl. It resurfaced after World War II when they were trying to stop rebuilding industry and the housing market which had been destroyed. The same argument appeared again in the 1960s when there was a great expansion in housing.
    However, during the 1970s when things got colder, everything flipped upside down and then it was global cooling that would destroy civilization.



    On April 28, 1975, Newsweek magazine published an article in which they sounded the alarm bell and proposed solutions to deliberately melt the ice caps:
    “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing variables of climate uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.”
    Then TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 edition had the cover story featuring “The Big Freeze.” They reported that scientists were predicting that Earth’s average temperature could drop by 20 degrees fahrenheit. Their cited cause was, of course, that humans created global cooling. It just seems that humans are so powerful we can alter the universe but cannot manage to create corrupt-free governments.



    The difference this time is they have been able to get governments interested on the basis that they can stop it by raising taxes. Canada imposed a $1,000 tax per home to stop global warming. Perhaps the theory is if the politicians get more money they will speak less and reduce the hot air they spout out by yelling the end is near.

    I see this as a derivative of the Populationists theory which was instituted by Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834). It was Malthus who first published his “Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society” in 1798. He published it anonymously, afraid to put his name on it, but he was soon discovered to be the author. Malthus argued that the resources of production would be exceeded by the population leading to real misery.

    Malthus’ theory proved to be completely wrong because he too failed to comprehend that there are cycles to everything. He never considered the cycle in technology and how farming has improved from ancient times up to his own time during the 18th century. Of course, food production has more than kept pace with population growth and even the population goes through cycles. Currently, birth rates have been declining. Then there are diseases and plagues that visit our societies, not to mention war, which all combines to thin the herd so to speak.

    The climate has ALWAYS moved cyclically. Anyone who dares to argue that climate change is NOT caused by humans is ridiculed because this is a political issue being used to raise taxes and to regulate human activity by removing ever-greater proportions of our human rights and freedom. Those who attack anyone who denies human-induced climate change are either brainwashed or have a self-interest in the entire scam.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (10th September 2019), bluestflame (28th September 2019), BMJ (22nd October 2019), mountain_jim (4th October 2019), Richard S. (11th September 2019), Star Mariner (11th September 2019), Tintin (10th September 2019)

  13. Link to Post #207
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    59,946
    Thanked 94,679 times in 15,439 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    WMO Secretary-General Warns Against Climate ‘Doomsters and Extremists’

    by Robert
    September 10, 2019

    London, 6 Sep 2019 – Press Release –

    The General-Secretary of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety.

    WMO Secretary-General Warns Against Climate ‘Doomsters and Extremists’


    Petteri Taalas, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

    London, 6 Sep 2019: The General-Secretary of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety.

    Speaking to Finland’s financial newspaper Talouselämä (“The Journal”) on 6 September 2019, Petteri Taalas called for cooler heads to prevail, saying that he does not accept arguments of climate alarmists that the end of the world is at hand.

    Dr Taalas also spoke of the dangers of green extremism:
    “While climate sceptisism has become less of an issue, now we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists; they make threats.”
    And he called for the media both to challenge experts and allow a broader range of opinions to be heard.

    The director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, Dr Benny Peiser, welcomed Dr Taalas’s intervention:
    “It’s very welcome to hear the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization finally challenging eco-zealots.

    “I hope mainstream climate scientists and the news media sit up and take notice; it’s high time they put some professional distance between themselves and radical greens and start to question their apocalyptic narrative of doom.”
    Contact
    Dr Benny Peiser
    Director, Global Warming Policy Forum
    55 Tufton Street
    London SW1P 3QL
    e: peiser@thegwpf.com
    mob: 07553 361718

    https://mailchi.mp/04d5b7dfa643/wmo-...emists-174969?
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (11th September 2019), bluestflame (28th September 2019), BMJ (22nd October 2019), mountain_jim (4th October 2019), onawah (20th October 2019), Tintin (19th October 2019)

  15. Link to Post #208
    Germany Avalon Member Michi's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th April 2015
    Location
    Reinbek, Germany
    Age
    57
    Posts
    219
    Thanks
    1,381
    Thanked 1,199 times in 207 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    While Greta Thunberg heavily pushed "Climate Change", she actually means stop destroying nature and start caring about the nature.
    In an interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger she was asked what made her to speak-up and she answered that she saw a film with plastics in the ocean.
    Also in this recent video, she explains what she really wants.



    It's about caring for the nature but the politicians and media use the wake-up call to serve their own agenda and unfortunately millions ride on the "climate change" fad.
    "The greatest good you can do for another is not just share your riches, but to reveal to him his own."
    -- Benjamin Disraeli

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Michi For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (31st October 2019), Bill Ryan (28th September 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), mountain_jim (4th October 2019), Richard S. (29th September 2019), Tintin (19th October 2019)

  17. Link to Post #209
    Avalon Member guayabal's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th January 2011
    Location
    Cali, Colombia
    Age
    45
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    1,967
    Thanked 549 times in 133 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    greta... poor girl, it seems that the UN bastards brainwash and train kids and put them on display every generation or so: https://www.bitchute.com/video/s2doQK0wApxo/

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to guayabal For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (31st October 2019), Bill Ryan (28th September 2019), Bluegreen (28th September 2019), bluestflame (28th September 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Tintin (19th October 2019)

  19. Link to Post #210
    United States Moderator Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Location
    journeying to the end of the night
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,956
    Thanks
    24,924
    Thanked 31,197 times in 3,852 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    mod note: these vids were suggested by former member and friend of the forum Onawah:




  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Mike For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (28th September 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), guayabal (28th September 2019), mountain_jim (4th October 2019), Sammy (5th October 2019), Tintin (19th October 2019)

  21. Link to Post #211
    United States Avalon Member Sammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th December 2011
    Location
    a lovely park bench
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,177
    Thanks
    29,635
    Thanked 26,146 times in 4,826 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Press Release from The Global Warming Policy Forum

    Major Climate Paper Withdrawn By Nature

    Retraction exposes lack of statistical expertise in climate science

    Retraction Note: Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition

    Retraction to: Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0651-8, published online 31 October 2018.

    Quote Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity.
    Read Here
    All the above is all and only my opinion - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Sammy For This Post:

    Baby Steps (5th October 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), mountain_jim (4th October 2019), onevoice (9th October 2019), Tintin (19th October 2019)

  23. Link to Post #212
    United States Avalon Member Sammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th December 2011
    Location
    a lovely park bench
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,177
    Thanks
    29,635
    Thanked 26,146 times in 4,826 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Top 10 reasons why Greta Thunberg is a fraud

    All the above is all and only my opinion - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sammy For This Post:

    BMJ (Yesterday), Michi (6th October 2019), Richard S. (5th October 2019), Tintin (19th October 2019)

  25. Link to Post #213
    Avalon Member Delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th January 2012
    Posts
    2,696
    Thanks
    4,979
    Thanked 11,711 times in 2,372 posts

    Default Re: For an idea on the "big" picture

    Very pertinent analysis of science run down to a fossilized husk that seeks only to maintain the beliefs systems that support agendas of evil (live backwards). Refer to the orginal article for reference links

    Quote The State of Science in The 21st Century
    Gordon Vick
    Sott.net
    Mon, 07 Oct 2019




    I grew up in Australia in the 1950s and '60s. The story we were sold at school was that science was leading the brave new world. Dedicated men and women were pursuing truth in science, free from bias and influence. Scientific discoveries were lauded in the press and we were exhorted to accept these new findings as gospel truth. Science was extolled as a great even a noble career.

    As I have grown older and (hopefully) wiser I have discovered that was anything but the truth. Science today has completely lost its way. There is a crisis in all disciplines around reproducibility - other people not being able to reproduce results reported. More and more funding is provided by corporates and foundations linked to corporates and government bodies with a very clear agenda and desire for particular results. Produce results that run against the agenda and you risk having your research terminated, your funding pulled, and your reputation attacked. There are many examples of this happening.

    The way for a scientist to progress his/her career is to do research and to publish in prestige journals. In order to do that, they need to attract funding and have their research peer-reviewed. It turns out that to attract funding, avoid being attacked by one's fellow scientists and be accepted for publication, it is necessary to follow the politically-correct path. And this is true in all fields of science, be they medical, psychology, climate, smoking, diet and nutrition etc.

    John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology, published a study in the late 1990s which really angered many of his peers. Titled 'Why Most Published Research Findings are False', it was published in PLOS. While it focused on medical research, subsequent data has shown his results apply across the board. He came up with several corollaries which are quite illuminating:
    The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
    The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
    The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
    The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Flexibility increases the potential for transforming what would be 'negative' results into 'positive' results,
    The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true
    The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
    He also noted that claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. How interesting; to determine the prevailing bias in society, just look at the bulk of published scientific research.

    So take a moment to think about these points, especially point 5: "The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true". Where do we see a better example than in the field of climate science? The estimated annual value of the climate industry is around $1.5 trillion per annum. That is a LOT of money being chased by people who cannot lay claim to any of it unless their research results confirm the current bias. If you are happy to bolster the "CO2 is the control knob of climate change" story, you can tap those funds. If you are sceptical of the story or think that other factors such as solar and cosmic cycles play a part, then you will miss out on the massive pot of money.

    In an ideal world, people would be open to debating their scientific theories and adjusting them appropriately as new data emerged. But we do not live in an ideal world. That $1.5 trillion per annum is a massive incentive for people to toe the politically correct line. No wonder there is such anger and passion in attacking anybody suggesting that CO2 is not the control knob for climate and that any climate change we are seeing is not caused by mankind's activities. So much money, so much research funding, so many reputations are on the line here that we will never see a sane and reasoned debate. And that is why anybody who questions the current paradigm, who is genuinely sceptical of the interpretation of the data, is labelled a "denier".

    Not only are sceptics labelled "deniers" they are also accused of being in the pay of fossil fuel conglomerates. The notion is absurd. The majority of websites publishing sceptical data struggle to exist from week to week and are constantly looking for donations from their readers. And absurd when you consider the $1.5 trillion budget funding the apostle of the climate faith.

    The people I come across on a daily basis who consider themselves sceptics don't 'deny' climate change. Any fool can see that the climate is changing, and in fact has always been changing. What they question is the CAUSE of that change; is it man or is it some other cycle? And for that, for daring to question the CO2 doctrine, these people are denigrated as 'deniers', an obvious attempt to conflate them with holocaust deniers. And to those people who are sceptics, the longer they look at the paucity of evidence and see the frequent attempts to shut them down and destroy their reputations for wanting an honest debate on an important subject, the more the climate movement looks like a religion. A religion where to question the basic tenets of the faith is to be a heretic who must be destroyed.

    In the last week, an academic journal called the Conversation, which claims to provide academic rigour with journalistic flair, has banned sceptics from commenting on their articles because they are 'too dangerous'. When did attempts to engage in scientific debate become dangerous? When they are at odds with the basic tenets of faith in your religion. So much for academic rigour. Curtailing free speech is more important to these people so they can 'keep the faith pure' and 'protect' their readers from any alternative views. And they are not alone.

    Michael Mann of Hockey Stick Graph infamy bans all sceptics from his Twitter feed. He attacks scientific research produced by sceptical scientists, and urges people not to read it. This is the same Michael Mann who sued Dr. Tim Ball for criticising his Hockey Stick Graph and claiming it was incorrect. As part of the court proceedings initiated by Mann, the judge ruled Mann must produce the data his graph was based on. Mann steadfastly refused to do this and in the end the judge dismissed the case. Many people wonder why the data was not forthcoming, maybe because it wouldn't stand scrutiny. Mann continues to relentlessly attack anybody who is a sceptic, claiming that "nobody can deny that climate change is real", which is a neat piece of obfuscation, as discussed above.



    It would also appear that academic qualifications and positions fit into a hierarchical system. In this system, people with degrees and academic positions who produce research that conforms to doctrine are held as the gold standard. Nothing is higher than peer-reviewed research that is doctrinally correct. However, when similarly-qualified sceptics publish peer-reviewed research which questions the status quo, then clearly they are in the pay of fossil fuel corporates, and have sold out their integrity for filthy lucre. They are 'heretics', the worst of the worst.

    Today we hear the many activists in the climate science fraternity laying claim to science validated by consensus. Whether there actually exists a consensus is another question and there have been a number of academics and scientists who have comprehensively debunked the oft-reported 'climate science consensus'. But whether or not there is a consensus, we need to remind ourselves that consensus has never been integral to the scientific method.

    If we look back over history we find many times 'consensus' was just plain wrong. Consensus claimed the Earth was flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. In 1982, two Australian scientists discovered that stomach ulcers were caused by the bacteria H Pylori and were easily treatable with antibiotics. Now you would imagine that these results would have been welcomed by the medical fraternity. But that is not what happened. There was a whole infrastructure built around the notion that stomach ulcers were incurable and that the only courses of available treatment were drugs and surgery.

    The consensus was that the only treatments were drug and surgery based. And that consensus was wrong. There were people whose income depended on it, whose reputations were built around these so-called facts. Needless to say, these gentlemen were attacked by a sceptical medical community. It took nearly 20 years before their easily reproducible results were accepted as valid by the medical fraternity and in 2005 they were awarded a Nobel prize in recognition of their work.

    Nothing has changed. Consensus has never been a line item in the scientific method. Arguing from consensus is just another attempt to force people back to the basic tenets of the climate faith, and 'damn what the data actually says'.

    Why is this all happening? There is clearly a strong group of climate activists with their very wealthy backers driving an agenda here. My observation is that they are looking to bring about a world where we are all vegan, living in a post-industrial world sans fossil fuels and associated technologies, a world with a far smaller population. They have hijacked climate science and are very successfully driving us towards a dystopian future, one which their ardent supporters are blissfully unaware is coming and who will be horrified if we indeed end up there.

  26. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Delight For This Post:

    Alan (19th October 2019), Bill Ryan (8th October 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Cara (9th October 2019), Star Mariner (23rd October 2019), T Smith (19th October 2019), Tintin (19th October 2019)

  27. Link to Post #214
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,984
    Thanks
    26,822
    Thanked 47,009 times in 9,567 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Former IPCC Scientist Refutes New Climate Change Report
    Oct 29, 2018
    Schiller Institute
    (It takes him awhile to get to the subject of global cooling due to the Grand Solar Minimum, but he gets there...)

    "Former expert reviewer for IPCC, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, denounces man-made climate change scare narrative, says "warming due to human activity is minimal at best."

    Dr. Madhav Khandekar holds a Ph D in Meteorology from the Florida State University USA (1968) and an M Sc in Statistics from Pune University India (1957). Khandekar has been in the field of weather and climate science for over 60 years and has published well over 150 papers, reports, book reviews and scientific commentaries. His current interest is global weather anomalies and extremes and their possible linkage to climate change. He retired as a Research Scientist at Environment Canada in 1997 and lives in Toronto."
    Last edited by onawah; 16th October 2019 at 01:09.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  28. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (15th October 2019), Bill Ryan (15th October 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Cara (16th October 2019), Richard S. (16th October 2019), Star Mariner (23rd October 2019), Tintin (19th October 2019), Wind (16th October 2019)

  29. Link to Post #215
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    10,984
    Thanks
    26,822
    Thanked 47,009 times in 9,567 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Viscount Christopher Monckton Speech - Climate Change: Debunking the Myths
    10/7/19
    UKIP

    "Climate Change: Debunking the Myths with Viscount Christopher Monckton at UKIP NW London on 7 October 2019."


    UKIP Leader Richard Braine at Climate Change: Debunking the Myths with Viscount Christopher Monckton at UKIP NW London on 7 October 2019.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (16th October 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (31st October 2019), Bill Ryan (19th October 2019), BMJ (22nd October 2019), Richard S. (16th October 2019)

  31. Link to Post #216
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    59,946
    Thanked 94,679 times in 15,439 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    The man who invented ‘climate change’

    by Robert
    October 18, 2019
    “It was never about climate change but about setting up a one world socialist government run by the UN!”
    – Don Brown
    Here are snips and pieces from an article by Christopher Booker, who describes Canadian socialist multimillionaire Maurice Strong’s “absolutely central role” in the whole story.

    In 1972, Strong, a superb political operator, set up a UN “Environment Conference” to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind and should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries at the expense of poorer countries.

    In 1988, he helped set up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    In 1992, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he helped stage and presided over the colossal “Earth Summit” in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.

    And ever since, it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process.

    Had it not been for this man, says Booker, we would not have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference.

    The UN in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris.

    To this day, global climate policy is still shaped by Strong’s Agenda 21, as was highlighted when Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican Marxist now head of the UNFCCC and organiser of the Paris conference, urged that the West should give “$1 trillion a year” to the “developing” world.

    Lest you think that Strong’s motives were pure, Booker includes this amazing tidbit:
    “In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao.”
    Funny, isn’t it, how our self-declared ‘saviours’ so often benefit while supposedly rescuing us?

    Or maybe that’s not so funny after all.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...te-change.html

    Thanks to Don Brown for this link


    Related:

    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  32. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (19th October 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Cara (19th October 2019), onawah (20th October 2019), Tintin (19th October 2019)

  33. Link to Post #217
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    59,946
    Thanked 94,679 times in 15,439 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Earth has been warmer than today for hundreds of millions of years

    by Robert
    October 22, 2019

    Two weekends ago I attended the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas and posted a photo of this chart showing Average Global Temperature over the past 630 million years. It shows that temperatures have been far warmer than today for millions – no, hundreds of millions – of years. Several dissenters have pooh-poohed the graph, so I thought you might like to see author Gregory Fegel’s supportive response.


    Average Global Temperature – Chart courtesy the Perot Museum of Nature and Science

    As you can see, average global temperature is now lower – LOWER! – than during most of the last 630 million years.

    When someone yells at you that humans are causing a climate emergency, hold onto your wallet.

    I used to say it was a ‘hoax,’ but now I think its much more dangerous than that. As far as I’m concerned, the global warming zealots are perpetrating an outright fraud.
    ____________

    Here is Gregory Fegel’s comment:
    The graph accompanying the article shows the Earth’s global mean temperature in Fahrenheit, from 625 million years ago to the present.

    The global mean temperature (GMT) is currently about 58°F. The natural global warming period called the Eocene Optimum peaked at about 49 million years ago. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that during the Early Eocene the GMT was about 9 to 14°C (16 to 25°F) higher than today. So the GMT during the Early Eocene was about 74 to 83°F.

    During the Eocene Optimum, little to no ice was present on the Earth. Forests covered most of the Earth, including palm trees growing in Alaska. The warmer temperatures facilitated the intercontinental migration of animals.

    The Eocene was a boom time for plants and animals, and it would have been a boom time for humans, had they existed then. Yet the climate alarmists claim that a rise of the GMT of 2 or 3°C will cause a catastrophic mass extinction for life on Earth.
    Thank you, Gregory Fegel.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  34. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd October 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Cara (23rd October 2019), Richard S. (24th October 2019), Star Mariner (23rd October 2019), Valerie Villars (23rd October 2019)

  35. Link to Post #218
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks
    35,967
    Thanked 5,698 times in 1,119 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Dr Shiva Ayyadurai speaks of the Paris Accord as being ultimately a cash grab by the globalist elites (satanic illuminati) to steal the wealth of western countries.

    In the second part of the interview he speaks of the fact that the "fake climate science" is propaganda bought by the globalist elite via assured funding to universities and their mediocre scientist.

    This belief system is in turn passed onto students which conform to the idea's to ensure they graduate.

    'No real thinking in academia anymore'

    Sky News Australia
    Scientist Dr Shiva Ayyadurai says there is “no real critical thinking” in academia anymore as professors are “following the money” when it comes to climate science.
    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (23rd October 2019), Hervé (23rd October 2019), onevoice (23rd October 2019)

  37. Link to Post #219
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks
    35,967
    Thanked 5,698 times in 1,119 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    Quote Posted by BMJ (here)
    Dr Shiva Ayyadurai speaks of....

    In the second part of the interview he speaks of the fact that the "fake climate science" is propaganda bought by the globalist elite via assured funding to universities and their mediocre scientist.
    As in this example involving Dr Susan Crockford, when you speak the truth about climate change you are dismissed.

    WATCH: Canadian Professor Lost Her Job for Telling the Truth About ‘Endangered’ Polar Bears

    Video interview at the link.

    A Canadian university has frozen a zoologist out of her adjunct professor post as punishment for saying the unsayable about polar bears: that populations are thriving; that they are not endangered; that stories about how they are being caused to starve by melting summer sea ice are junk science #FakeNews.

    Dr Susan Crockford is one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears and had held her post as Adjunct Professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada for 15 years.


    But by speaking the truth about polar bears she fell foul of environmental activists who have long treated Ursus maritimus as one of the poster children for their “the Earth is doomed and it’s all our fault” narrative. As a result, without explanation, Crockford was ousted from her position at the university.

    In an interview with Crockford this week for Breitbart News, I ask: ‘Do you think you’ve been blacklisted for telling inconvenient truths?’

    She replies:

    “Oh I absolutely do.”

    Crockford’s “crime” was to point out that contrary to environmentalists’ computer projections, polar bear populations have increased, not decreased — despite “global warming”.

    “What happened was that in 2007 there was a prediction that when sea ice declined to about 42 per cent below what it would have been in 1979 that two-thirds of the polar bears in the world would be gone. That would be 10 out of the 19 sub populations that exist.

    But what has happened, we find from research, is that bear numbers have not gone down but in fact have gone up by at least 16 per cent and probably more. So the bears are thriving despite the fact that sea ice has declined dramatically.”

    The “polar bears starving because of melting sea ice” story has been a staple of the green scare narrative.

    In 2017, for example, footage of an emaciated polar bear rummaging pitifully through trash cans became a huge international story.

    The video for National Geographic attracted over two million views. It was set to tear-jerking music and accompanied by the utterly dishonest and misleading message “This is what climate change looks like.”

    In fact, as Crockford explains, this was the purest green #FakeNews.

    “Starving is the leading natural cause of death for polar bears. It just happens.”

    If the polar bear was starving to death, it was likely the result of its being old or sick — not because of melting summer sea ice.

    Crockford says:

    “Polar bears do most of their feeding in the spring time, not the summer. Starving polar bears don’t tell us anything about populations.”

    Link: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...ource=facebook
    Last edited by BMJ; Yesterday at 13:41.
    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  38. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (31st October 2019), Bill Ryan (28th October 2019), Hervé (28th October 2019), onawah (28th October 2019), onevoice (28th October 2019), Sammy (28th October 2019)

  39. Link to Post #220
    United States Avalon Member Sammy's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th December 2011
    Location
    a lovely park bench
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,177
    Thanks
    29,635
    Thanked 26,146 times in 4,826 posts

    Default Re: "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

    If this is already here, apologies -

    All the above is all and only my opinion - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.

  40. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sammy For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (31st October 2019), Bill Ryan (31st October 2019), BMJ (Yesterday), Richard S. (31st October 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst 1 11 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts