Perfectly blue skies out, and suddenly I was watching a white streak paint straight across the sky above me...
Koch is just reminding me he doesn't answer to Trump...
Printable View
Perfectly blue skies out, and suddenly I was watching a white streak paint straight across the sky above me...
Koch is just reminding me he doesn't answer to Trump...
Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers
Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.
read all here
Is this sort of news still news?
Big data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial here
read the rest by clicking the headline above.Quote:
So, our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.
and another article on the study -
Delingpole: Global Warming Is Almost Entirely Natural, Study Confirms
When asked what I think of climate change I always say the same thing: it's true. The notion of change is intrinsic to climate. When asked what I think should be done about it I also always answer the same way: about what? If they add, about man-made climate change, I reply: stop raping the land.
Man has affected the local climate for many millennia primarily by incorrect land husbandry, it is nothing new.
In this instance and perhaps many others throughout history the rape was in the name of energy, either in the form of food, fuel, or power. Instead of sound stewardship and careful implementation of sustainable and non-lethal projects, the sources of energy have always been rapidly depleted until gone, regardless of consequences. Then the weather would change - and the climate, and the people either adapted, died or moved on.
I suspect this time is no different, except perhaps there is nowhere left to move to on this earth. But even though that seems to leave only one option, it does not. We can adapt.
The oilmen knew almost fifty years ago that the glory days were all but gone, and that what was left was the dregs of their former wells and already tapped fields. They have sequestered alternative modes of energy production and gathered the political will to go empire building, to secure more oil from abroad. With their political base firmly established they will now enter the final arm of their strategy: secure a lucrative fall back position as they divest of their former holdings in oil and gas. Thus the carbon tax, a sound adaptation on the part of the oilmen. Make money on it coming out of the ground and make money as it falls back out of the air.
When all is in turmoil and the populace are clamouring for a solution, when enough hardship has weakened the will of the people, when the mass riots turn from the empty supermarkets to city halls, then a new source of power will suddenly be found.
Or they may have their bases and select citizenry already established deep underground and on various extra-terrestrial worlds in the solar system and beyond. In which case we're on our own.
We will be forced to adapt. How that plays out is anyone's guess.
Bottom line? I'm all for climate change but I will not pay for it to arrive.
all other planet are heating up too, so it seems to be a solar system phenomena:
Entire solar system is heating up! Scientists blame solar warming
Nothing is stable, including the solar system. New evidence suggests the solar system is moving into a new energy zone which is altering the magnetic fields of the planets.
There is reason to believe Earth is not the only planet in the solar system undergoing climate change, meaning CO2 emissions are not the primary force responsible for the rise in global temperatures. Growth of the dark spots in Pluto, reports of auroras on Saturn, polar shifts in Uranus and changes in light intensity of Neptune suggests something very strange is happening in the solar system.
Many scientists suspect that the solar system has migrated to a region of the galaxy with high energy. We have the illusion that the sun is a nebulous ball of gas fixated in the sky that the rest of the solar system dances around. In reality, the sun is one star among many sitting on the outskirts of the Milky Way, hurtling through space at 72,000 kilometers per hour. Although the total amount of energy within the universe is conserved, pockets of energy in the Milky Way vary in intensity. The solar system may have rolled into one of these highly active regions.
Sun’s magnetic field increases in strength
The warming of the entire solar system has been supported by some scientists. One dramatic shift that is taking place is the strength of the sun’s electromagnetic field. According to a study by Dr. Mike at Lockwood Rutherford Appleton National Laboratories, in California, the sun’s magnetic field has increased by 230 percent within the last 100 years. The energetic changes in the sun radiate outward though solar wind, thereby increasing the charge of interstellar space.(1)
Another piece of evidence in favor of solar change is the sudden rise in galactic star dust. Ulysses, a space probe, has been monitoring the amount of star dust flowing through the solar system since 1992. The sun’s magnetic field impacts how much star dust drifts through the solar system. The magnetic field attracts more star dust as it strengthens.
Overflow of star dust in solar system
A reverse in the sun’s magnetic poles has opened the flood gates: the solar system is experiencing an overflow of star dust. The sun reverses its magnetic polarity every eleven years. The reversal takes place during the solar maxim, which is the peak of the 11 year solar cycle. As the sun’s magnetic field grows, it attracts more dust. Consequently, the amount of star dust in the solar system has increased three fold since 2003, which is heating up interstellar space.(2)
What is puzzling scientists is the amount of star dust that continues to flood the solar system even though the sun has calmed down. Scientists believe the sun’s polarity may have not completely reversed in 2001. Instead of reversing, from north to south, the poles may have flipped only half-way and now reside along the sun’s equator. This weaker configuration of the sun’s magnetic field has allowed two to three times more star dust to enter the solar system than in the late 1990s.(2)
The warming of Pluto
Another affirmation of solar change comes from Pluto. Pluto resides on the icy outskirts of the solar system near a giant shell of astronomical bodies know as the Oort Cloud. Although Pluto resides in the coolest regions of the solar system, the dwarf planet is heating up. Specifically, Pluto’s atmospheric pressure has increased by 300 percent, which is more than any other planet in the solar system. Even more paradoxical, Pluto’s atmosphere is becoming denser as it travels farther away from the sun. Due to this, scientists suspect Pluto is at the forefront of a high energy region of the galaxy that the solar system is beginning to reside in.
Their is no doubt that human activity is impacting climate change. Nevertheless, there are other forces outside the solar system that are effecting climate inside the solar system. Whatever the case may be, Earth can expect a rough ride as it travels through foreign warm waters.
source:
http://www.space.news/2015-10-06-ent...r-warming.html
more info:
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/med...230-stronger/#
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread221608/pg1
I'm always astounded that humans in all of their so called intelligence and wisdom left out one major thing out from equations or just dismissed it as mostly irrevelant. That is of course the greatest dynamo near us, our dear sun. To claim that it isn't nearly completely responsible for our climate and it's changes is just ignorance taken almost to a moronic level. Which makes me question if it's only ignorance, deceit comes to mind too. Then again, I often have expected more from people when it comes to wisdom and have been highly dissapointed so who knows.
When in the very near future people will be freezing to death en masse, I wonder if the high popes of science still will claim it's man made global warming which is causing it. I'm sure the likes Al Gore will be enjoying his mansions and money thanks to the climate fraud.
Post meant as a joke, but might be misunderstood!
Mad Hatter dons his quizzical cap...
So, GreywolfBG... you are of a similar vintage to me thus would have lived through (admittedly in your early teens) the 'we are all going to die in the impending ice age scenario'.
Obviously neither of us did so, thus given that load of hyped up BS for the times I am curious as to why you so ardently believe in the what to me appears to be a repeat performance fine tuned to match the current... um... warming cycle?
Given your posts appear to reflect a level of intelligence indicating you have researched the matter in some depth and come to the conclusion(s) you obviously have, I am also curious to know if your deliberations included downloading and scrutinising the 'Climategate' email dump? If not, why not?
If you did then I'd like to know what you made of the comments within the modelling code which clearly indicated to me (given an IT background) the alarming potential for shall we say 'fudge factoring'... just the sort of thing that gave the world Manns hokey schtick.
Since then I have also wanted to know if within the current modelling code there is an allowance for regular inputs into the ionosphere of 3.5 GIGAWATTS of microwave power from but one of some purported 100+ installations planet wide capable of such things and here I am talking about H.A.A.R.P. type stations. No one seems to mention it, now why would that be? To test an 800 watt microwave oven you simply see if it boils a cup of water at the end of a two minute period.
Personally I find it hard to believe that within the purported 90% of scientists involved in the consensus viewpoint (not that consensus has anything to do with real science), that not a one has flagged that just maybe regular pummeling of parts of our atmosphere with potentially upwards of 300 Giga watts of microwave energy might be having some effect and if not on climate then at least the potential for changing the weather?
Is this down to ignorance on the part of all those scientists? I think not, for some yes, but it does beg the question of moral fortitude for those that are aware. Still if the gravy train is big enough I suppose the dilemma of what to do in Rome can arise...
For me answers to real world situations are invariably obtained via the maxim 'Cui Bono' and assuming you have an open mind on the subject if you are not familiar with a particularly sociapathic anthropoid known as 'Maurice Strong' you might like to factor him into your future deliberations on this subject matter. He was a prominent member of a body of like minded psychopaths collectively referred to as 'The Club of Rome' from which I will leave you with one of my favourite quotes as food for thought...
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
cheers
MH
Amusing item by Tucker Carlson it shows the hypocrisy of the celebrity/political
climate scarer's aprox 8mims 20 secs in he makes his point on the climate topic....
Whether Climate change is happening or not there is always one rule for the
elites and wealthy and another for the mass's let alone what the military uses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Nye who is a sceptic on most things except climate change uhm!
Tucker Carlson vs Bill Nye On Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdjfc0w4q7s
Published on 4 Sep 2017
Tucker Carlson vs Bill Nye On Climate Change
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rogan on Bill Nye & Climate Change .....Joe points out Bill Nye is an engineer
not a science expert, but an enthusiastic amateur paid to promote an agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qr-rs7ldJo
Published on 21 Aug 2017
Joe Rogan talks about Bill Nye and the issue of climate change becoming an
ideological one. Featuring Mike Baker.
Taken from Joe Rogan Experience #1001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rogan & Ben Shapiro discuss Trump's Stance on Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvI2NH9-0aM
Pub 2nd Aug 2017
Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro talk about climate change and how much the left wing
leftist liberals exaggerate it without having evidence. Rogan says he is worried
about Donald Trump's view that the economy is more important than the
environment, but Shapiro somewhat defends Trump's views on climate change. Joe
Rogan and Ben Shapiro also talk about Bill Nye's stance on climate change and Al
Gore's documentary on climate change, as well as the left using climate change
denier as an attack on the right. Joe Rogan says that he thinks there is an issue
with how much we pollute and mess up the planet, while Shapiro thinks the left
have exaggerated the effects of human induced climate change on the planet on
the Joe Rogan podcast, JRE 993.
Joe Rogan & Ben Shapiro discuss Donald Trump's stance on Climate Change -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvI2N...
Climate science and their money making scam
Tony Heller The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:05 UTC
Forty years ago, the front page of the Chicago Tribune featured astrologer Jeanne Dixon, and a warning that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was going to collapse and drown us all. That was during the global cooling scare.
It was one of the coldest winters on record in the US. It snowed in Miami, and they blamed the Polar Vortex and California drought on global cooling.
The National Science Foundation Program Manager said that in 1977 that collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet nothing to do with a warmer climate."We're doing about the most we can do right now to study the possible collapse of the west ice sheet," said Dr. Richard Cameron, NSF program manager for glaciology.The West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreated 30 miles from 1840 to 1930, when CO2 was below 300 PPM.
'We're seeing the West ice sheet on its way out," said Cameron. "It seems to be doing something completely different than the east ice sheet. It has nothing to do with a warmer climate, just the dynamics of unstable ice."
But facts, history and data don't make any difference to climate alarmists. They have a huge money making scam to maintain, and will say anything to keep their criminal venture alive.
A Warmer World.
SOME great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent. Its glaciers are shrinking. Commander L.A. Bernacchi, who visited the South Polar land 30 years ago, says that the Great Ice Barrier which fronts the continent with a wall of ice for 250 miles has receded at least 30 miles since it was first seen and surveyed. Sir James Ross, who went out on the earliest Antarctic expedition of the nineteenth century, and those who fol lowed him, left clear descriptions of this tremendous ice frontage and its position. It was a cliff 150ft. high and 1000ft. thick. But now it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries.
The Richie Allen Show on Davidicke.com: Julie Kelly - 'Climate Change
Is About Higher Taxes, More Government & NOT About Science'
By Andrew Cheetham on 26 September 2017 GMT Richie Allen Radio Show
Published on 26 Sep 2017
==================================================
==================================================
Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change and hurricanes
By Andrew Cheetham on 26 September 2017 GMT
THE WASHINGTON TIMES....
Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change and hurricanes
read more..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ent-for-skept/
====================================================
====================================================
When Leo met Trump: DiCaprio slams politicians' 'willful ignorance and inaction' on
global warming after the president ignored his 'comprehensive plan to tackle
climate change'
By Andrew Cheetham on 22 September 2017 GMT
read more...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-warming.html
====================================================
====================================================
Climate Change Just Changed
By Andrew Cheetham. D Icke.com on 25 September 2017 GMT
Published on 23 Sep 2017
Mutiny on the SS Global Warming, Perpetrated by the Top Ranked "Sailors on that vessel"
Carbon Effect Paper: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...
Solar Data: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2...
2018 Conference Page: http://www.observatoryproject.com/otf...
Conference Speakers: https://youtu.be/DtyEL2OI1Bc
This is an interesting take on the effect on the US military and how
its open to widespread financial abuse as the swamp dwellers do
the corporates bidding . Making plenty of $'s promoting 'green'
fuels that cost 9 times as much as conventional ones and more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Climate Change" Is Putting Fear In The Department Of Defense
Published on 28 Sep 2017
Dr. Bonner Cohen joins to talk about how General Mattis has been falling
into the climate hoax and how the military has unlimited spending.
Follow David Knight On Twitter: https://twitter.com/libertytarian
At the very least, charging us - we the people - in the form of a "carbon tax" is very much the scam. Where does the money go and exactly WHAT will it fix? (About as pointless as charging people for the use of the Sun or air!) ;) Oooops - I shouldn't joke... "they're" already charging for water!
There was something simular to an "Air-tax" on the Irish by the British some decades ago. If the Irish wanted more Windows they had to pay more "Window-tax".Quote:
Posted by KiwiElf
It was called the Window tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax
Don´t say they are not imaginative.
http://www.historyhouse.co.uk/gfx/window_tax.jpg
When letting in sunshine could cost you money.
First imposed in England in 1696, Window Tax was repealed in 1851 after campaigners argued that it was a 'tax on health', and a 'tax on light and air', as well as being an unequal tax with the greatest burden on the middle and lower classes.
Originally introduced to make up for losses caused by clipping of coinage during the reign of William III, the tax was based on the number of windows in a house.
It was a banded tax. For instance, in 1747 for a house with ten to fourteen windows, the tax stood at 6d. per window, fifteen to nineteen windows, 9d., and exceeding twenty or more, 1s.. The tax was raised six times between 1747 and 1808. By then the lowest band started at six windows. This was raised in 1825 to eight windows.
The window tax was relatively easy to assess and collect as windows are clearly visible from the street.
As early as 1718 it was noted that there was a decline in revenue raised by the tax due to windows being blocked up. It was also observed that new houses were being built with fewer windows. In 1851, it was reported that the production of glass since 1810 remained almost the same despite the large increase population and building of new houses.
The complaints from the medical profession and enlightened individuals rapidly grew as the industrial revolution and urbanisation created mass housing and crowded cities, and raised the spectre of epidemics. They argued that the lack of windows tended to create dark, damp tenements which were a source of disease and ill-health.
The campaigners eventually won the argument and in 1851 the Act was repealed and replaced by a house tax. Punch Magazine celebrated its repeal with the cartoon shown above.
A tax on windows was also used in Scotland and France.
Source:
http://www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/window_tax.html
A tax on windows?!!! :raining: Who knew?!! :sun:
There have been many tax's that have come and gone over the centuries and someQuote:
A tax on windows?!!! Who knew?!!
supposed temporary ones like income tax brought in during WW1 has become
permanent and ever increasing. The most recent in the UK , 'Bedroom' tax which
is seen mainly a tax on the lower social end of society who rent from the various
council authorities. The aim is to not have spare bedrooms , so that if you live in a
four bed house and only have one child you have pay extra for the empty rooms.
Or move to a smaller house , which sounds great in a accountants office but can be
a social upheaval to the people involved , who may have live in an area while their
family grew up and do not wish to leave .
A Brief History of....Window Tax brought in by King William 111 in 1696
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGE98o4WnnQ
It also spread to France and Spain....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z22B8VNcV0
People got around the tax by bricking up windows...
http://www.peakdistrictonline.co.uk/...tonhouse40.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...26_634x423.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-benefits.html
Of all the.....:spit: :crazy:
My current opinions:
- We are adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere that normally wouldn't have been contributed if not for all the increased industrial activity over the past century or two.
- CO2 does contribute to a "greenhouse" effect
What I don't know:
- Is that extra amount going to tip the scales and cause some kind of huge problem to life on earth?
What I care about:
1. Do we have a climate problem coming our way that could ruin this planet's ability to harbor life? If not then I'll move on to the next subject that catches my interest.
2. If the answer to concern number 1 is yes, then concern number 2 becomes: Is there anything mankind can do to change the course/prevent this climate problem that's coming? If the answer is no, then I'll stop stressing about that as well, and move on to the next subject that interests me. (After I buy an underground shelter, of course.)
3. If the answer to concern number 2 is yes, then I guess I'm interested in the shenanigans that people might be running in order to make money off the situation. Much like how we don't care about preventing cancer. We want earth to get cancer, that way we can profit from the treatment it'll need to "fight" it.
we can agree to disagree on CO2 and it's "greenhouse makery"Quote:
Posted by Joe Akulis
But, it also turns out we underestimated the amount of c02 release allowed by humans before we hit hte "1.5*" shift marker (touted as "the end" by global warming believers)... by 50%... which is... A LOT.
So lets just toss C02 out the window? (do c02 levels TRAIL or LEAD warming trends (hint: they trail)).
Don’t let them con you – It has been cooling for 8,000 years
by Robert October 1, 2017
A picture is worth a thousand words:
https://www.iceagenow.info/wp-conten...ng-Arrow-1.jpg
Expanded record of temperature change since the end of the last glacial period Source of graph (I added the red arrow):
I'm not sure why I started watching these vids as they appeared on the u'tube link
and took my eye and after watching the first I carried on to the second and they
are both interesting , educational and amusing imo.....
ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"
Published on 1 May 2017
In a very special #LwC, for one full hour, we sat down with Dr. Patrick Moore,
PHD in Ecology and founder of Greenpeace, and dissected the scam that is
modern "climate change".
===================================================
ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "2017 Hurricanes Aren't Because of Climate Change"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n6afpnIS4g
Published on 9 Sep 2017
We sat down with Dr. Roy Spencer, an actual climatologist and former NASA
scientist (who's rebuttal to Al Gore's latest film overshadowed the actual film) to
discuss the possible correlations between 2017's "unprecedented" hurricane season
and climate change.
It's hot as balls over here on the east coast just outside of Philly. Born and raised in this area so this is my personal perspective. It's hot and getting hotter.
If any one is willing to give a heads up where they live, how it used to be 25 years ago, and now, will you?
I would like to know if you notice a marked difference in temps.
More and more studies confirm the climate change hoax is... a hoax.
Man-Made Climate Catastrophe Is a Myth, More Studies Confirm
One, a study by Scafetta et al, published in International Journal of Heat and Technology, confirms that the “Pause” in global warming is real – and that “climate change” is much more likely the result of natural, cyclical fluctuations than man-made CO2 emissions.
Abstractread the rest here
The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014. Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.
No difference here in Toronto. This year the summer was cold. Last year it was hot. Same overall...
No warming noticed.
Quote:
Posted by Ernie Nemeth
How does a human notice a yearly average change of .5 degrees anyway (or what ever is claimed)?
New York Times article “so full of nonsense that it is difficult to read”
by Robert October 10, 2017
Yesterday The New York Times ran an article refuting any ideas that the planet is cooling due to solar activity (or lack thereof). Joseph Kraig provides a wonderful rebuttal.
_________________________
New York Times article “so full of nonsense that it is difficult to read”
By Joseph Kraig
This article is so full of nonsense that it is difficult to read.
There is no universal ice melt. Though the article says ice is melting world wide and the oceans are rising, it is simply not true. The oceans are not rising and in places where it was supposed to rise it has actually gotten lower. Greenland saw a faster and larger increase in ice this year than ever recorded. The Glaciers in Alaska and California are both getting larger.
While the sun appears the same day after day it is not. There have been major increases in ultraviolet emissions during the 80’s and 90’s, those emissions are now falling, dramatically.
As long ago as the Maunder Minimum it was known that fewer sun spots cause cooler weather. We are now in a time that is bringing us to a Maunder type of minimum or Grand Minimum.
While it is true that temperatures have been rising (and falling) since the end of the last glaciation we are at the end or what should be the end of the inter-glacial period. We should appreciate any warming we can get.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing. Certainly humans contribute to that growth but the percentage of increase due to human industry is minuscule. In fact the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule. It has never been proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There are much more effective greenhouse gases in our atmosphere such as water vapor and Methane.
There are other sciences discoveries that are changing the way scientist think about Global Warming. Who would have thought a couple decades ago that the stars sending their cosmic rays to us could affect our weather but they do, especially in solar minimums.
Ignorance rules our newspapers and much of society. The truth is out there for all to see but those who don’t like the truth, lie and know - because of our unwillingness to spend a little time reading - that we won’t know any better. I refuse to believe the lies of the Mainstream press apparatus.
Climate Change is always with us, it has been taking place ever since the planet developed an atmosphere.
I think one of the major conceptual errors which many folks to seem to make is that thinking the Earth's atmosphere is some kind of an Ideal entity, designed for human beings, and that we have somehow 'ruined it'.
I am not for one minute advocating that human pollution is not harmful, that would be madness. However I do think Al Gore, and the crew at the United Nations who are brewing up all of this catastrophic, human created 'warming' propaganda do so because they have an agenda.
I have looked at this issue for quite a while, I am a man of science, in terms of being an IT specialist, and educated to tertiary standard, I know the 'scientific method' - climate change has taken place in far more dramatic ways prior to the industrial revolution.
One of the best accounts for climate change is being presented by Ben, of The Suspicious Observers YouTube channel.
If you are interested in some authentic, science based alternative information, you can do a lot worse than to watch the playlists on Climate & space weather of this channel. Al Gore is full of Sh!t. The sun is currently entering a quiet period.
Mark Steyn is a regular on Fox and I was looking at some other articles and
noticed he was in front of the climate change committee,
Mark Steyn rebukes democrats in climate hearing: 'You're effectively enforcing a state ideology'
Published on 8 Dec 2015
Hearing: Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate
over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth's Climate
US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
December 8, 2015
====================================================
Tables turned: Scientist Judith Curry and Author Mark Steyn question, school Sen
Markey on climate
Published on 8 Dec 2015
====================================================
Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zk7Xfyv6k4
Published on 9 Aug 2017
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth
and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research
interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates,
air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric
research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research
Committee. As of 2017, she has retired from academia.Curry is the co-author of
Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia
of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her
awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American
Meteorological Society in 1992.Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC
reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster" in projecting
future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem." Curry also hosts a
popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and
the science-policy interface.
Judith Curry has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of
those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. Curry has stated she
is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science
community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its
analysis for independent review. In February 2010 Curry published an essay
called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts
Up With That? and other blogs. Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls
the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the
November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate". In September
2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by
Curry. She wrote that "Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers,
academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the
interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and
the science-policy interface."[8] She wrote: "I have a total of 12,000 citations of
my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average
about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments." She gets " zero academic
credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting," but hopes that " social media
and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic
system." Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in
2013, remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate. In
October 2014, Curry wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal where she argued
that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than
the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission
scenario, which is far later than the IPCC prediction of a 2-degrees-Celsius warming
before 2040.
====================================================
Tucker Carlson interviews Climatologist Judith Curry who quit over insanity in field
of climate science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ys2HCq-pw
Published on 8 Jan 2017
Tucker Carlson Vs Climatologist Judith Curry who quit over insanity in field of climate science
Corbett Report..Climate Models for the Layman with Dr. Judith Curry
Published on 15 Mar 2017
SHOW NOTES AND MP3 AUDIO: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=22123
Dr. Judith Curry, climate scientist and former chair of the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, joins us once again today to discuss
her comprehensive new report, "Climate Models for the layman." We discuss
the history and purpose of climate modeling, their uncertainties, equilibrium
climate sensitivity, and what we can or cannot learn from their study.
==============================================
Previous interview...
Dr. Judith Curry Explains "The Republic of Science"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdm9dWK-khE
Published on 10 Jun 2016
Dr. Judith Curry is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology who went from
the "high priestess of global warming" to a "climate heretic" after realizing she
had been duped by the IPCC. Today she joins us to talk about her recent
breakdown of Michael Polanyi's 1962 article "The Republic of Science." Topics
discussed include the science/policy nexus, the breakdown of the old norms of
scientific research, and how the internet is helping to revolutionize science.
====================================================
====================================================
Very Amusing but thought provoking....
Mark Steyn vs Michael Mann, Climate Change: The Facts, Keynote 4, ICCC10
Published on 2 Jul 2015
Mark Steyn talks about his new book, “Climate Change: The Facts” and his lawsuit
against climate scientist Michael E. Mann of Penn State University at The Heartland
Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change on June 12, 2015. To
watch all presentations from this conference and others, visit
ClimateConferences.Heartland.org. To read all of Mark Steyn’s work, visit
SteynOnline.com
the cooling trend continues
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/10...-in-september/Quote:
Global Ocean Cooling in September
September Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) are now available, and we see downward spikes in ocean temps everywhere, led by sharp decreases in the Tropics and SH....
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2...dsst092017.png
the jig is up , they've already spun it from "warming" to "change" , seems everything is coming to a head , hence thier resorting to "last resorts"
The west must have stole all your heat :) Records all summer on this end. Hottest and driest I have seen in Calgary in last 20 some years. Besides all the wildfires and incredibly poor air quality the entire summer, the heat was a nice change! :)Quote:
Posted by Ernie Nemeth
"Calgary entering 'uncharted territory' for sustained heat"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...cord-1.4222224
here's a few of the records just from BC on just Aug 1st and 2nd ..
Post Edited from here:
Bella Bella area — 27.1 degrees Celsius (previous record 25.5 in 1999)
Campbell River area — 33 degrees Celsius (previous record 32.8 in 1965)
Hope Slide area — 30.5 degrees Celsius (previous record 30 in 2015)
Tofino area — 28 degrees Celsius (previous record 25.6 in 1965)
Victoria Harbour area — 25.9 degrees Celsius (previous record 25.6 in 1891)
Abbotsford area — 34.1 degrees Celsius (previous record 32.3 in 1939)
Agassiz area — 35.6 degrees Celsius (previous record 34.4 in 1898)
Bella Bella area — 28 degrees Celsius (previous record 26 in 1993)
Chilliwack area — 35.6 degrees Celsius (previous record 32.8 in 1927)
Estevan Point area — 21.9 degrees Celsius (previous record 20.6 in 1947)
Hope area — 37.2 degrees Celsius (previous record 36.1 in 1939)
Kitimat area — 31 degrees Celsius (previous record 31 in 1999)
Malahat area — 32.5 degrees Celsius (previous record 30.8 in 1993)
Port Alberni area — 36.8 degrees Celsius (previous record 35 in 2009)
Port Hardy area — 23.1 degrees Celsius (previous record 22.2 in 1961)
Powell River area — 29 degrees Celsius (previous record 28.9 in 1961)
Sechelt area — 29.3 degrees Celsius (previous record 28.8 in 2009)
Squamish area — 33.2 degrees Celsius (previous record 30.8 in 2009)
Tofino area — 31.5 degrees Celsius (previous record 27.2 in 1993)
White Rock area — 29.5 degrees Celsius (previous record 28.9 in 1939)
https://globalnews.ca/news/3644588/b...-years-report/
August 28th ...
Vancouver Harbour 27.2 C
Victoria Gonzales 28.7 C
West Vancouver 30.8 C
Squamish 32.7 C
Lillooet 36 C
Port Alberni 35.9 C
Lytton 39.1 C (old record 37.2 C in 1967)
Pemberton 36.8 C (old record 34.6 C in 2002)
Clearwater 35.0 C (old record 34.4 C in 1929)
Cranbrook 33.9 C (old record 33.3 C in 1929)
Squamish 32.7 C (old record 30.6 C in 1967)
Sparwood 32.5 C (old record 31.7 C in 1986)
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-breaks-reco...wave-1.3566781
Records for highest ever hydro (electricity) consumption were broken several times in BC and Alberta.
BC recorded its worst ever year for wildfires in terms of hectares burned and number of fires.
The interesting part is that without all the persistent overhanging smoke from all the wildfires, it would have been much hotter yet. The smoke at least partly blocked out the sun the vast majority of the time, and in the mornings in BC when it was really smoky it was cool; when the smoke started to lift later in the day is when you could really start to feel the sun. but it was significantly cooler with the smoke blocking it -- far more effect than the sun being blocked by clouds - very noticeably more.
I wonder how hot it would have been had we not had the smoke?
From the Wikipedia page on the 2017 NA heatwave ...
http://www.osoyoostimes.com/wp-conte...w-1024x683.jpgQuote:
Several daily record highs were set Thursday, Aug. 2, including: Medford, Oregon (109 degrees), The Dalles (108 degrees), Portland, Oregon (103 degrees), Eugene, Oregon (102 degrees), Olympia, Washington (96 degrees), Seattle (94 degrees), Santa Maria, California (88 degrees). Smoke covering much of the region (from wildfires in British Columbia, Canada) kept temperatures below all-time record levels.[6] In the first week of August, much of the Pacific Northwest was covered in haze, resulting in poor air quality. It was predicted to take at least another week to clear.[7]
Juneau, Alaska set record highs on August 5–6, during a week of highs in the 70s. Much of southeastern Alaska saw temperatures reach the 80s.[8]
On August 7, Seattle matched its all-time record for consecutive days without precipitation, with no end in sight
Anyway, just my anecdote, last summer was hotter than average as well, but not anywhere to this level.
Not sure who "they" are, but the term "climate change" was first popularized under the Reagan administration because James Watt said that global warming was too scary and wanted it removed from all speeches.Quote:
Posted by bluestflame
It was 106 degrees this summer in San Francisco. Hotter than the concurrent Burning Man festival in Black Rock Desert at a time when we normally wear jackets.
I still see chemtrails -- geoengineering-- almost every day.Quote:
Posted by Rocky_Shorz
With the manipulation of weather by HAARP and chemtrails, the global warming debate just seems like a cover up or a distraction.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/h...ering-reality/
There are weather anomalies happening in many places because of this chemical and EMF manipulation.
MM
in my mind the important change in this is that carbon dioxide can no longer be villified (or taxed, though I believe the EU is alerady doing something like a carbon tax?) the "carbon" push was so huge.. If that's all that goes away due to the "change" instead of "warm" then I'll consider it a win.Quote:
Posted by bluestflame
It kind of also undercuts the anthropomorphic argument as well, which takes away the manipulation/control angle which I think was a desired outcome as well.
We had the coolest summer I've seen in 5 years; but also some pretty intense tropical weather (obviously, with 2 cat 5's hitting us).
'Global Warming' 30 years on: How and why it never came to pass
Michael Bastasch Daily Caller
Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:44 UTC
For at least three decades scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming "apocalypse" that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.
The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels - coal, natural gas and oil - that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left - or even less!
Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had "as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more."
This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. and others from issuing more apocalyptic statements.
To celebrate nearly three decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation put together this list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:
1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat
A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.
The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year, once again warning of the dire consequences of global warming and other alleged ecological ills. Now numbering 15,000, the group warns "soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out."
"We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home," the scientists and experts warned.
It's a terrifying warning - if you ignore the fact that none of their 1992 warning has come to fruition.
2. The planet will be "uninhabitable" by the end of the century
New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth "uninhabitable" by "the end of this century."
Wallace-Wells's article warned of terrors, like "Heat Death," "Climate Plagues," "Permanent Economic Collapse" and "Poisoned Oceans."
"Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century," Wallace-Wells wrote.
3. Prince Charles's global warming deadline passed...and nothing happened
Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from "irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it." That deadline has passed, and the prince has not issued an update to when the world needs to be saved.
Though the recently-released "Paradise Papers" show Charles lobbied U.K. lawmakers to enact policies that benefited his estate's investment in a Bermuda company that does sustainable forestry. So, there's that.
4. 'Ice Apocalypse' Now
Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the "ice apocalypse" at a pace "too quickly for humanity to adapt."
Holthaus warned the wholesale collapse of two Antarctic glaciers - Pine Island and Thwaites - could happen sooner than previously believed, resulting in "flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees." Sounds terrible, but his conclusions aren't really backed up by the science.
"I think his article is too pessimistic: that it overstates the possibility of disaster. Too soon, too certain," Tamsin Edwards, a scientist who's studied Antarctica, wrote in The Guardian about Holthaus's article.
5. 2015 is the 'last effective opportunity' to stop catastrophic warming
World leaders meeting at the Vatican issued a statement saying that 2015 was the "last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius]."
Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis reiterated that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.
But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference is the "last" chance to cut a deal to stem global warming...since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014's climate summit.
6. France's foreign minister said we only have "500 days" to stop "climate chaos"
When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos."
Ironically at the time of Fabius' comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 - some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.
7. Former President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming
When Obama made the campaign promise to "slow the rise of the oceans," some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.
The United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obama's second term was "the last window of opportunity" to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it's "the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade," adding that if "we don't do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place."
Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only "has four years to save Earth."
8. Remember when we had "hours" to stop global warming?
World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009 to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada's Green Party wrote that there was only "hours" left to stop global warming.
"We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it," Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. "Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday."
9. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth
The year 2009 was a bad time for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only "50 days to save the world from global warming," the BBC reported. According to Brown there was "no plan B."
Brown has been booted out of office since then.
10. The U.N.'s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if "there's no action before 2012, that's too late."
"What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment," he said.
Well, it's 2017 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that's changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.
11. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green
Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within "as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world's animals or it continues to feed the world's people. It cannot do both."
About 930 million people around the world were undernourished in 2002, according to U.N. data. By 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.
12. Global warming apocalypse 1980s edition
The U.N. was already claiming in the late 1980s that the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.
The San Jose Mercury News reported June 30, 1989 that a "senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000."
That prediction didn't come true 17 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.
Related:
Solar System-wide 'climate change': Jupiter's moon Io seeing increasing volcanic activity
Solar minimum: The sun is getting quieter... and its rotation is slowing down
BOOM! Mysterious blasts rattling the skies are on the increase around the world - UPDATE at least 64 documented events (VIDEO)
Is something strange happening deep inside the Earth?
Volcanic eruptions, rising CO2, boiling oceans, and why man-made global warming is not even wrong
Oops, Warmists just lost the Antarctic peninsula - it is now cooling
Astrophysicist: "Mini Ice Age is here to stay"
Global Warming And The Corruption Of Science
Moose freezing to death due to global warming!
Does Putin think 'man-made global warming' is a fraud?
You missed an opportunity there Hervé...
Here is another perspective...
Attachment 36556
Rothschild's Island with nuclear reactors. (Just reported taken out today by Benjamin Fulford)
The water is not just hot; it is radioactive.
Image that!
MM
PS. I just sent. PM to RunningDeer to help us read the image by enlarging it.