+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst 1 8 18 20 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 392

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

  1. Link to Post #141
    United States On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    The Seat of Corruption
    Age
    44
    Posts
    9,177
    Thanks
    25,610
    Thanked 53,659 times in 8,694 posts

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

    very cold winter down here... we are barely scraping mid 70's....


    ok, im lying.. we are seeing no indications (warmer or cooler) yet on the 17th parallel (previously I had used my coconut oil as a temp indicator, but it hasn't solidified yet so far... maybe in the next few months?

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)

    The Climate is basically a globalist tactic of instilling fear for more power .
    so good to see that officially stated.

    though, by a BRICS member.... hmmmmmmmm Why can i see this as some sort of cold war tactic? unfounded belief in "climate change" (soft cover for global warming) is surprisingly prevalent... it could be a good motivator (like "communism" was)
    Last edited by TargeT; 5th January 2019 at 20:30.
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    Chip (5th January 2019), lake (5th January 2019), ThePythonicCow (5th January 2019), Tintin (23rd January 2019)

  3. Link to Post #142
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    945
    Thanks
    3,830
    Thanked 4,531 times in 811 posts

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

    Well how about this rather untechnical consideration ....

    The sun whilst traversing a rather benign (or positive ion charged) region of space, suddenly lacks the capacitor interaction required and causes the mesopause to 'drop' suddenly on to the surface of the Earth, thus creating a global ice box of minus 100 degrees C within a few hours?
    Last edited by lake; 5th January 2019 at 21:14.
    Normal..!

  4. Link to Post #143
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,581
    Thanks
    30,501
    Thanked 138,435 times in 21,490 posts

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

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    though, by a BRICS member.... hmmmmmmmm Why can i see this as some sort of cold war tactic? ...)
    The new President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, is quite a bit more in Trump's corner of the global boxing ring than in the BRICS corner (see for example this Business Insider article), as is his choice of Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister, Ernesto Fraga Araújo (see for example Business Insider article), who made these comments on Climate Change.

    So, if things are as they seem (not mathematically impossible <grin>) then this is not a cold war conspiracy.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    justntime2learn (18th January 2019), TargeT (6th January 2019)

  6. Link to Post #144
    United States On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    The Seat of Corruption
    Age
    44
    Posts
    9,177
    Thanks
    25,610
    Thanked 53,659 times in 8,694 posts

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

    Quote Posted by lake (here)
    Well how about this rather untechnical consideration ....

    The sun whilst traversing a rather benign (or positive ion charged) region of space, suddenly lacks the capacitor interaction required and causes the mesopause to 'drop' suddenly on to the surface of the Earth, thus creating a global ice box of minus 100 degrees C within a few hours?
    the sun would most closely be compared with an anode, not a compositor............. are you sure you understand this material? it can be a bit complex



    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    though, by a BRICS member.... hmmmmmmmm Why can i see this as some sort of cold war tactic? ...)
    The new President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, is quite a bit more in Trump's corner of the global boxing ring than in the BRICS corner (see for example this Business Insider article), as is his choice of Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister, Ernesto Fraga Araújo (see for example Business Insider article), who made these comments on Climate Change.

    So, if things are as they seem (not mathematically impossible <grin>) then this is not a cold war conspiracy.
    so.... the trojen horse has no legs?

    the all mighty IMF challenger is already crumbling?
    Last edited by TargeT; 6th January 2019 at 11:04.
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    justntime2learn (18th January 2019), lake (6th January 2019), Tintin (23rd January 2019)

  8. Link to Post #145
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    945
    Thanks
    3,830
    Thanked 4,531 times in 811 posts

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

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    Quote Posted by lake (here)
    Well how about this rather untechnical consideration ....

    The sun whilst traversing a rather benign (or positive ion charged) region of space, suddenly lacks the capacitor interaction required and causes the mesopause to 'drop' suddenly on to the surface of the Earth, thus creating a global ice box of minus 100 degrees C within a few hours?
    the sun would most closely be compared with an anode, not a compositor............. are you sure you understand this material? it can be a bit complex
    Well, yes, you maybe completely correct and I comprehend nothing and am confused. But that is fine and I thank you

    My consideration is that the sun is a capacitor which is being charged via the aether, within it's (Sol) structure and as the charge builds (over millennia or perhaps only 72 years ) eventually it requires to issue a discharge....and this event is linked to the proximity of surrounding astral bodies, which are all within a circulator of 'events and actions', but 'just' before this discharge the interaction between Sol and Terra would create a shrinking of Terra's atmosphere thus enabling the 'drop' and a sudden (within minutes) requirement for very thick underwear!

    But again you are correct and as to 'mainstream thought'......I know sod all

    It is just my feelings on things lol
    Last edited by lake; 7th January 2019 at 08:46. Reason: 72 years
    Normal..!

  9. Link to Post #146
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,581
    Thanks
    30,501
    Thanked 138,435 times in 21,490 posts

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

    Quote Posted by TargeT (here)
    so.... the trojen horse has no legs?

    the all mighty IMF challenger is already crumbling?
    If by "the Trojan horse" you mean BRICS, then it most certainly does have legs, just not all five original legs.

    Brazil has gone Trumpster,and South Africa has gone chaotic.

    But Russia, India, and China are still looking to me like strong up and comers, with China likely the next "great nation". See further my Post #24 on Bob's important "What are they doing on the moon?" thread.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    justntime2learn (18th January 2019), Tintin (23rd January 2019)

  11. Link to Post #147
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

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

    A truly Mad Max world sacrificed on the altar of green socialism

    by Robert January 17, 2019
    “If humans stopped all emissions of CO2 now, they would trash their entire economies and in the process kill billions of humans though economy collapse, famine, and war.”
    – J.H. Walker
    _____________

    A truly Mad Max world sacrificed on the altar of green socialism

    J.H. Walker

    The real point the Warmists have missed is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is dependent on how cold the oceans were 500 years ago and at the same time how warm the upper 200M of the tropical oceans are now.

    CO2 levels are a lagging indicator of temperature and our Ocean currents can lag that change by as much as 500 years via the cold, deep, returning leg of the worlds Overturning current. Over 50 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is sequestrated in the deep oceans via being rained out over millions of years. Volcanic CO2 is released at high temperature and it quickly rises to the surface where it out gasses in company with the warm water column during its release.

    CO2 commenced its measurable rise in late 1940s and observable during 1950. It is a scientific fact that a given 1LT of very cold, highly oxygenated water which is also high saturated with soluble CO2 takes 500 years to descend from the Ice edge of the high Arctic and move with the Overturning current at 1000M plus depths to the central Pacific upwelling regions and the high surface temperatures SSTs above 20C.

    Cold carbonated soda POP contains masses of CO2, and on opening its container, a soda POP at 20°C is out gassed after 30 minutes.

    The major portion of the Little Ice Age (LIA) commenced 575 years ago with the long Spoorer Grand Solar Minimum (GSM), soon followed by the equally long Maunder GSM. By my calcs, given the 500-year current gap, the CO2 outgassing covering the LIA period of 700 years should conclude by 2420. CO2 will continue to rise in the atmosphere during that long period of time.

    If humans stopped all emissions of CO2 now, they would trash their entire economies and in the process kill billions of humans though economy collapse, famine, and war, all so the few can lord it over the 250 million survivors as they scavenge a living in the mega city metropolitan wrecks of this failed world.

    A truly Mad Max world sacrificed on the altar of green socialism, a politically bankrupt UN’s attempt to create a socialist world government based on a fraudulent corruption of science, and a compliant cheer leading, left leaning, mass media giving propaganda opium to the people.
    "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 10 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (18th January 2019), Bill Ryan (18th January 2019), Hym (18th January 2019), justntime2learn (18th January 2019), lake (18th January 2019), Mike Gorman (26th February 2019), seko (21st March 2019), Sophocles (18th March 2019), Tintin (23rd January 2019), wnlight (23rd January 2019)

  13. Link to Post #148
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

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

    CO2 rise shrinks Sahara Desert by whopping 8%! 700,000 sq km of added vegetation

    P Gosselin No Tricks Zone
    Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:10 UTC


    © NASA

    Recent study by Venter et al finds that the Sahara has shrunk by 8% over the past three decades.

    Almost daily the CO2 Science site brings reports on the impact of climate change on the living world. Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne here

    Recently, CO2 Science brought up a paper in Nature Communications.

    Using satellite images, Venter et al. 2018 found an eight percent increase in woody vegetation in sub-Saharan Africa over the last three decades, underscoring the global "greening trend".

    According to Wikipedia, the Sahara covers a vast area of some 9.2 million square kilometers. Eight percent of that translates into more than 700,000 square kilometers. That's an area that's almost as big as Germany and France combined! This is profound.

    In other words, it's well over 10,000 Manhattans!

    If the added green area were effectively used for agriculture, it could produce enough food to feed the African continent. Unfortunately, this is a fact that the doomsday-obsessed media, activists and ruling politicians fear will become publicly known. They instead would prefer that the globe returns to a climate of the 1980s, when drought and famine ravaged the vast North African region.

    According to the recent study, the cause was a decline in vegetation fires in a warmer and more humid climate. Abstract:
    Drivers of woody plant encroachment over Africa
    While global deforestation induced by human land use has been quantified, the drivers and extent of simultaneous woody plant encroachment (WPE) into open areas are only regionally known. WPE has important consequences for ecosystem functioning, global carbon balances and human economies. Here we report, using high-resolution satellite imagery, that woody vegetation cover over sub-Saharan Africa increased by 8% over the past three decades and that a diversity of drivers, other than CO2, were able to explain 78% of the spatial variation in this trend. A decline in burned area along with warmer, wetter climates drove WPE, although this has been mitigated in areas with high population growth rates, and high and low extremes of herbivory, specifically browsers. These results confirm global greening trends, thereby bringing into question widely held theories about declining terrestrial carbon balances and desert expansion. Importantly, while global drivers such as climate and CO2 may enhance the risk of WPE, managing fire and herbivory at the local scale provides tools to mitigate continental WPE.
    Read more at CO2 Science.



    © Venter et al. (2018).

    Change in woody plant cover over sub-Saharan Africa based on satellite observations of 30 years of fractional woody plant cover (1986-2016). The histograms and adjacent color scale indicate data distributions. The insert indicates the percent change in wood cover for the entire region by year, revealing an approximate eight percent increase over the length of the study. Grey areas were masked from the analysis and represent urban surfaces, wetland, cropland, and forest (areas >40% cover by trees >5 m).

    Another element that is unmentioned is the fertilization effect of the added CO2 into the atmosphere surely provides.

    Relotian media

    This is positive news that no one will find in the Relotian mainstream media, which are fixated on purveying propaganda, falsehoods, half truths and censorship with the aim of distorting public opinion and vigorously marginalizing dissenting views.

    Further reading:
    "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 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (18th January 2019), Bill Ryan (23rd January 2019), BMJ (29th March 2019), Ewan (29th June 2023), Intranuclear (29th April 2019), Mike Gorman (26th February 2019), Sophocles (18th March 2019), ThePythonicCow (18th January 2019), Tintin (29th March 2019)

  15. Link to Post #149
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

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

    IPCC Fatal Error – Neglecting ocean thermal inertia

    by Robert January 23, 2019
    “Goodbye anthropogenic global warming.”
    – Dr Roger Higgs
    _________________

    IPCC Fatal Error – Neglecting ocean thermal inertia

    The Earth is now cooling, says geologist Dr. Roger Higgs. If the cooling continues, “man-made-global-warming believers will by 2021 have to admit they were wrong and that CO2 is blameless and that Svensmark’s sun/cosmic ray/cloud/temperature link is correct.”

    IPCC’s 2013 report (co-author physicist Dr M. Lockwood FRS) says the sun “cannot explain global mean surface warming over the past 25 years, because solar irradiance has declined over this period,” Higgs points out.

    Instead, says Higgs, the IPCC blames man’s additions of CO2, a gas that totals just 1/2500th [400ppm] of Earth’s atmosphere [near plant-starvation level], and a mere 1/10th of previous historical values.

    The IPCC’s error arises because Lockwood assumes Earth’s average surface temperature reacts almost instantly to solar-output changes, with a time-lag of less than 3 years, says Higgs.

    But that assumption is wrong.

    When Higgs cross-correlated solar cosmic-ray and temperature graphs, he found that massive ocean thermal inertia causes, not a 3-year lag, but a 25-year lag.

    This means that the sun CAN explain global mean surface warming over the past 25 years.
    “The ‘man-made-global-warming’ idea is a fallacy whose time is nearly over,” says Higgs.
    See entire article, with graphs:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329880738_GOODBYE_’ANTHROPOGENIC_GLOBAL_WARMING’_FATAL_IPCC_ERROR_BY_NEGLECTING_OCEAN_THERMAL_INERTI A

    Thanks to Dr. Roger Higgs for this link

    Here’s some information about Dr. Higgs
    http://www.geoclastica.com/BudeGeoWalks.htm
    "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.

  16. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (23rd January 2019), Bill Ryan (23rd January 2019), BMJ (29th March 2019), Deux Corbeaux (24th January 2019), Ewan (29th June 2023), Sophocles (18th March 2019), TargeT (26th February 2019), Tintin (23rd January 2019), wnlight (24th January 2019)

  17. Link to Post #150
    England Unsubscribed ripple's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th December 2018
    Location
    south of England
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    109
    Thanked 687 times in 211 posts

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

    NASA SEES COOLING TREND . THINGS MUST BE SERIOUS FOR THEM TO START HINTING AT THE FULL AND HONEST PICTURE .


    “We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

    The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.

    “The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

    The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.




    “Taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere,” as advocated by the IPCC in its October 8 news conference, is also foolish. Historic records show that, at about 410 parts per million (ppm), the level of CO2 supposedly in the atmosphere now, we are near the lowest in the last 280 million years. As plants evolved over that time, the average level was 1200 ppm. That is why commercial greenhouses boost CO2 to that level to increase plant growth and yields by a factor of four.

    The IPCC has been wrong in every prediction it’s made since 1990. It would be a grave error to use its latest forecasts as the excuse to engage in geo-engineering experiments with the only planet we have.

    ​Global Warming Errs Badly

    To understand the great confusion about global warming or climate change, my most lucid guide has been Dr. Richard Lindzen — a former Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the US National Academy of Sciences — and his now famous lecture for the Global Warming Policy Foundation last October 8.

    In just a number of segments of his lecture, Dr. Lindzen crystallized for me why the church of global warming errs so badly in its dogma.

    Global warming promoters fostered the popular public perception of the science of climate change as quite simple. It is that here’s one phenomenon to be explained (“global average temperature,” or GAT, which, says Lindzen, is a thoroughly unscientific concept). And there’s one explanation for it: the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    GAT is only one of many important phenomena to measure in the climate system, and CO2 is only one of many factors that influence both GAT and all the other phenomena.

    CO2’s role in controlling GAT is at most perhaps 2 percent, yet climate alarmists think of it as the “control knob.”

    Most people readily confuse weather (short-term, local-scale temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind, cloudiness, and more) with climate (long-term, large-scale of each) and think weather phenomena are driven by climate phenomena; they aren’t.

    Consequently, as Lindzen says, the currently popular narrative concerning this system is this: The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1 to 2 percent perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable — carbon dioxide — among many variables of comparable importance.

    Big Chill
    Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?

    Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

    The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998. If someone is tempted to argue that the reason for recent record cooling periods is that global temperatures are getting more volatile, it's not true. The volatility of monthly global average temperatures since 2000 is only two-thirds what it was from 1880 to 1999.

    All sources are referred to in detail above . The whole post gives extracts from a ZH article published today .

  18. Link to Post #151
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

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

    Dr. Tim Ball: Seven Ways To Spot Climate Change Propaganda

    By: Dr. Tim Ball
    February 12, 2019


    Climate change propaganda is designed by the United Nations for one thing only: to stampede the world into Sustainable Development and its green agenda. It masquerades as benevolence saving the world, but is harmful to the world and anti-human.
    ⁃ TN Editor

    This is an update of an earlier effort to counter the propaganda war that is going on to promote the falsehoods about the environment and climate. An update is required because skills improved with practice and as they lose the war desperation demands greater deceptions. Technocrats are at the center of this development.

    They achieve control in various ways, so it is invaluable to read the signs and avoid the deception. The most reliable tool is simple skepticism. Ironically, fake news is now so pervasive that it is much easier to assume everything is fake. The global warming deception is the oldest deeply entrenched fake news story because it is the product of government and deep state bureaucrats. Maurice Strong established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This is a UN agency run by bureaucrats in Geneva but made up of bureaucrats from the national weather offices of every UN member nation. They work every day using your tax dollars to deceive you.

    Here’s what will cause alarm bells to ring on a properly tuned global warming detector:

    One. Everything that is going on with weather and climate is normal and not outside historic records as they constantly claim. Therefore, every claim or story about weather or climate is a deception. One way they do this is what climatologists call cherry-picking. You can pick any part of a record to show the trend to support your story. The WMO claims a 30-year long record is statistically significant. They call it the 30-year Normal when it is anything but normal. It was adopted because statisticians claim a sample size (n) of 30 is representative of any size population (N). The problem is that climate cycles are anywhere from 2 years to 100,000 years.

    For example, a 2017 BBC headline said “Hottest June day since summer of 1976 in heatwave.” That is 41 years, which is statistically significant but not climatologically significant. A Youtube story reports “Sydney has wettest November day since 1984.” CBS Pittsburgh reported “NWS: 2018 is the 2nd Wettest Year on Record in Pittsburgh.” The record began in 1871 or 147 years ago, but even that is not climatologically significant. The ones I like are this one from North Carolina, that says, “A Look Back at the Coldest day Ever in North Carolina.” “Ever” even in North Carolina is approximately 4.5 billion years.

    Other stories focus on a pattern or change in a pattern again with the idea that it is new or abnormal. Headlines like this one from 2012, “Why have there been more tornadoes than usual this year?” Often, they are suggestive such as this 2017 New York Times story. “The 2017 Hurricane Season Really Is More Intense Than Normal.” When you read the story, you find, as is usually the case, that the caveats at the end indicate it is not unusual at all. This is irrelevant to the authors who know the only thing the reader will remember is the headline. Notice that headlines are always in the Active Voice unlike the Conditional Voice words like “could,” “maybe,” or “possibly” in the body of the story.

    Two. In 2004 the perpetrators and perpetuators of the Global Warming deception at the University of East Anglia realized the CO2 level continued to rise, but temperatures stopped increasing. It was what Thomas Huxley described as the great tragedy of science the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact. The climate deceivers didn’t skip a beat, they changed the issue from global warming to climate change. This gave them a greater range and made the problem more threatening. Now you see headlines identifying that it was, variably the warmest, coldest, wettest, driest, calmest, and windiest, in the official record, which for most of the world is less than 50 years. In reality, the issue is still only about warming because that is the only part of the weather affected by CO2.

    Three. Exploitation of natural fear is central to any attempt to control people. It is no coincidence that the original fear story was Chicken Little and the sky is falling. As H. L. Mencken said,
    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
    Science writer Michael Crichton wrote about the entire sequence as it relates to the climate in his book State of Fear. It is fiction. Here is the comment in Wikipedia
    State of Fear is a 2004 techno-thriller novel by Michael Crichton, in which eco-terrorists plot mass murder to publicize the danger of global warming.
    However, the science is accurate because Crichton was a roommate at Harvard with Richard Lindzen, a top climate scientist. Crichton was a medical doctor with post-graduate degrees from Oxford.

    Four. Mistrust a story the minute it attempts to play on your guilt or emotions. Invariably, it makes you guilty because the children are going to die, some element of the planetary system is collapsing, animals are going extinct, forests are in decline, and coral reefs are dying. Of course, they always distort the animal extinction issue. I would explain to audiences that many animals are thriving because of human activity, pigeons, snakes, coyotes, rats. I then pause and ask if I have mentioned any they like yet? The bias is to furry, round-eyed, creatures like polar bears and koala bears. More new species are found every day than go extinct in 50 years.

    Five. Originators of environmental and climate change propaganda stories know the public is ill-informed about science. They take advantage of this by using terms that people don’t understand or mislabeling things to make them more menacing. For example, they interchangeably and incorrectly call CO2, which is a gas, Carbon, which is a solid. They incorrectly label carbon dioxide, a pollutant. They make meaningless assertions like “Climate change is real,” or “The science is settled.” One way to put the last comment in perspective is to challenge. Say, “fine, then we should cancel all funding for climate research.”

    Six. A change of keywords is a sure sign that at least one aspect of their deception was exposed. The classic change discussed earlier was from global warming to climate change. Another change is underway because people are starting to say, hang on a minute, climate changes all the time. There are three contenders for replacement now, “climate chaos,” “climate catastrophe,” and “climate disruptions.” The term “Polar Vortex” was the invention of John Holdren when he was Obama‘s science advisor. It is not a scientific term, but its appearance implied that it was new and due to human activity. In fact, it was popularly referred to as an outbreak of cold air from Canada called an “Alberta Clipper.”

    Seven. Another sign of propaganda is a constant raising of the threat. Here is a good example.
    And humankind does not have long to act, according to a study in the journal Nature Geoscience. British and Australian scientists report that they calculated the pattern of temperature rises if immediate action is not taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    The propaganda war was made necessary from the start because there was no scientific evidence for the claims of environmental collapse and human-caused global warming. Start with a lie, and you admit it when evidence exposes it, or continue the lie with ever increasing deceptions.

    As Sir Walter Scott said,
    “What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
    "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.

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

    Ba-ba-Ra (26th February 2019), Bill Ryan (26th February 2019), BMJ (29th March 2019), Deux Corbeaux (27th February 2019), Sophocles (18th March 2019), TargeT (26th February 2019), ThePythonicCow (26th February 2019)

  20. Link to Post #152
    Norway Avalon Member
    Join Date
    19th February 2011
    Age
    42
    Posts
    821
    Thanks
    16,435
    Thanked 4,441 times in 780 posts

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

    Climate debate - a political construction

    Jon Gulbrandsen - Dr. philos. Biologist
    March 17, 2019

    resett.no



    [Sophocles: This article is translated with google translate. Pictures and graphs in original article]


    In the old days, research and politics were independent disciplines, but today the politicians want to control the research so that it delivers the desired political results.

    Initially, they threw themselves over the social sciences, because these could easily be adapted to changing ideological needs. The result was that small Norway in a short time received the world's highest density of social scientists and 710 gender researchers, but ended up in the last place in research in general.

    I thought science would be immune to politicization, because science had a too high degree of integrity, but it still happened, through some kind of indirect governance. For the defense of politicians, it must be said that they hardly knew exactly what they were doing, because the process was the result of a cluttered interplay of science, bureaucracy and politics. But in essence they got the answers they themselves asked for, but over such a long period of time and through so many errags that they probably had forgotten where it started.

    As a researcher, I myself was part of this strange process, where we burned a couple of billion on a program that had little chance of success, but because it had been elevated to a research program, it was quite impossible to stop. Some of us voiced our concerns, including me, but most dare not, because it almost always results in an early retirement.

    It is therefore typically the case that notifiers are already retired.

    The German physics professor Carl Otto Weiss is one of these. His specialty is non-linear optics, where one of the review themes is frequencies and wavelengths, ie a form of cyclic phenomena. It was therefore natural for Weiss to ask himself whether or not the temperature data were cyclical, but, like all good researchers, he first examined what had already been done in the area.

    He was shocked; we had spent $ 15 billion on climate research, WITHOUT EXAMINING ABOUT THE CLIMATE VARIATIONS WAS CYCLICAL! Weiss concluded dryly that "so something fishy must be going on" so he decided to investigate the matter himself, but after he had retired.

    At his disposal, he had over 250 years of temperature data from six well-known places in Europe (measurements started in 1757), Antarctic ice cores, and 2500 years of proxy data from tree rings, stalagmites and sediments. He ran the data through a mathematical process known as a Fourir transformation, which gave him the individual sine curves, and again drove them back through an inverse Fourir transformation to reconstruct the raw data. He did this in 2013, 2015, and 2017, along with two of his colleagues, Lüdecke and Hempelmann.


    The results were clear:

    1) Temperature variations are cyclical, and can be divided into sine curves showing periods of 1003, 463 and 188 years, which in turn reflect the solar activity over the same periods (~ 1000, ~ 500, and ~ 200 years),

    2) there are no traces of non-periodic phenomena;

    3) it is not a mathematical artifact;

    4) the phenomenon is global and

    5) we are moving into a cold period.


    Thus, in contrast to the CO2 concentration, which is monotonously growing, and in contrast to claims made by the People's Education in NRK, where they claim that temperature variations are only local.

    With this, the whole debate should have been over, but with the opposite sign of what we normally hear; the global climate is not controlled by anthropogenic CO2, at least it has not done so in the past 2500 years, and we can forget about everything from CO2 taxes, carbon capture to climate targets. This is very good news, because then we can rather spend our money on important problems, such as food and resource shortages.

    But the UN, the EU, the liberal elite, the climate industry and the state-supported media were not happy. They had put too much at stake to turn around. They were what pilots call "committed". So they simply ignored Weiss's results and grinded on the long-standing claim that 97 percent of climate scientists say it is anthropogenic CO2 that drives the climate, which they have never said, they just said they believe people do in one way or another. The question is whether it is measurable, and it is not. Furthermore, the claims are repeated that the UN says that the globe is getting warmer, that there is more storm and that the sea is rising.

    This they cannot possibly believe in themselves, because otherwise Al Gore wouldn’t have bought a beachfront house at $ 9 million, but then again it is not true either; The globe is becoming colder, there is less storm and the sea does not rise significantly, it rises and falls depending on phenomena such as land uplift. But the point is that this has nothing to do with CO2 - it's a pure diversion!

    And when it comes to the UN, they have warned climate catastrophes ever since the 1970s, but then there was a new ice age they were afraid of. Later, in the 1980s, they turned the claim from cooling to warming, with equally great empathy. For example, in 1989, Noel Brown (UNEP) stated that "all nations will be obliterated by the year 2000 if we fail to reverse the climate", which is evidently not the case.

    Presumably, this is why they now leave the stage to school-gossiping teenage girls who, without blinking, claim that "the earth is boiling" because of human CO2 emissions. And young girls are always a success, because by convention they are unassailable. It holds that they represent the antithesis of old white men, and therefore they do not even have to argue, nor do they.

    The alarmists' new star, 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, also presented only unfounded claims in her meeting with the EU, delivered with a quick and wronged mine. But this is the privilege of young girls, and in the face of yet another old white man, President Jean-Claude Juncker, the result was given in advance; Juncker threw in the towel and unreservedly promised the furtive girl billions of euros in "climate action", whatever that meant, but he said nothing about that either.

    In this game, 78-year-old Professor Doctor Carl Otto Weiss is without chance.

    But two questions still arise: What in the world are our politicians thinking about, and why are there no reactions from academia and national media?

    One point is that our last five Prime Ministers say they represent primarily global interests and not national ones, apparently because they have ambitions to tear down national states and build a kind of international community instead, with themselves in advanced positions.

    But they cannot do this without an agenda, so they chose two issues with a high international profile; climate and migration policy. Both cases had the advantage that they weakened the nation states and strengthened the international community, which happened to be their own goals.

    The problem was just that both cases were logically weak, but in politics, as is known, everything is possible, and then it plays less role if they try to solve real-life problems or imaginary problems. All that is required is that it generates voices at home, and it does, oddly enough.

    But why didn't there come any protests from academia and national media? Presumably because both rely on state budget transfers, and therefore protests come only from independent online newspapers without press support, and retired researchers. But these, in turn, are attempted gagged by the media, courts, filter.no, faktisk.no (which now censors for Facebook!) And Facebook itself.

    Here it is worth noting that Facebook founder Marc Zuckerberg for open microphone promised Angela Merkel to filter out unwanted news and opinions. One of the newly-filtered is the editor of Nettavisen, Gunnar Stavrum, and in fact reduces the other media's visibility on Facebook, with the blessing of Angela Merkel and Marc Zuckerberg.

    But with this, they have in fact declared war against the entire free world, or what’s left of it, and that is dangerous, because the day that people are no longer living in a democracy, the reactions can also become undemocratic.

    Source (in Norwegian)

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sophocles For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (9th April 2019), BMJ (29th March 2019), Hervé (29th March 2019)

  22. Link to Post #153
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

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

    Seriously, who believes this gibberish?

    by Robert March 28, 2019
    “So not only can they take the Earth’s temperature accurate to more than one hundredth of a °C they can now measure sea level rise to a one hundredth of a millimetre ????”
    – Rosco Mac
    _______________


    Seriously, who believes this gibberish?

    By Rosco Mac

    I saw a story on Australia’s cheer leader on climate alarm the ABC the other day.
    “Scientists using seismic testing at the largest glacier in east Antarctica find massive subglacial lakes beneath its surface — which they say radically alters estimates on predicted sea level rise.”
    One guy said
    “While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates sea levels will rise by a metre by 2100, Dr Galton-Fenzi said those estimates did not factor in the increased discharge of Antarctic ice due to climate change.”
    He stated that between 7 and 11 metres of sea level rise was possible by 2100.
    Aren’t you simply amazed by the power of atmospheric CO2 ?

    Somehow atmospheric CO2 traps radiation from the cold Antarctic surface at 5 kilometres high in the stratosphere and then somehow manages to sneak below a 2 kilometre (6561 feet )-thick glacier causing melting at the bottom whilst the surface of the glacier shows zero sign of melting !!

    WOW !! Run and hide !

    Of course underwater or under glacier volcanism couldn’t possibly have any impact on this could it ?

    And, as usual, there was the obligatory finale invoking that IF ONLY we had MORE research money to investigate this (fanciful fraud – the CO2 is the cause fraud I mean) we could assist in our understanding of climate change.

    Here’s the link
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-...study/10936998

    The written story is slightly different in that he doesn’t make the bald statement shown on TV – 7 – 11 metres of sea level rise by 2100.

    Oh, by the way, Naomi Orsekes made a similar, albeit not as large, nonsensical claim in about 2011 and here is how Tony Heller graphed her claim – 10 feet sea level rise by 2100.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ea58u51hgo...02100.bmp?dl=0

    As usual stupid alarmist claims produce absolutely nonsensical graphs when plotted.
    10 feet is 3048 millimetres and over 89 years requires a rate of increase of 34.25 millimetres per year !!

    The “measured” sea level rise is between 1.7 and 3.2 millimetres per year – 10 times LESS than Orsekes fanciful claim.

    To meet her ridiculous claim we should have already seen almost 274 millimetres since she sprouted that BS – almost 11 inches !

    Or will it simply wait for 50 + years and then all melt suddenly in a splash reminiscent of dropping several ice cubes into your glass of Scotch ?

    Or how about this gibberish ??
    “The study, by US scientists, has calculated the rate of global mean sea level rise is not just going up at a steady rate of 3mm a year, but has been increasing by an additional 0.08mm a year, every year since 1993.”
    Still nothing like Orsekes 34.25 millimetres per year or the Antarctic circus’s claim of about 86 millimetres (3.4 inches) per year though !!

    So not only can they take the Earth’s temperature accurate to more than one hundredth of a °C they can now measure sea level rise to a one hundredth of a millimetre ????

    Seriously, who believes this gibberish ?
    "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.

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

    Bill Ryan (9th April 2019), BMJ (29th March 2019), Sophocles (29th March 2019), TargeT (29th March 2019), ThePythonicCow (29th March 2019), Valerie Villars (29th March 2019)

  24. Link to Post #154
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    315
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

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

    "Global warming" was used as an excuse to promote nuclear energy because it supposedly does not create heat like coal based power plants do.

    We are sitting right in the middle of the Ice Age which started over a million years ago.
    In this ice age, there are very cold glacial periods which last about 130,000 years interspersed by relatively warm interglacial periods each of which lasts only about 10,000 years.

    We are at the very end of this interglacial, which began about 13,000 years ago, melting ice which flooded land masses and separated Europe from Africa, Australia from New Guinea, etc.

    What are the characteristics of glacial periods?
    Strong westerly winds
    Drying of large continents
    and
    Activation of volcanoes and frequent large scale earthquakes

  25. Link to Post #155
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

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

    ...

    The following might give an idea on another way the sun might wreak havoc with the weather and climate on earth:

    NASA images show how solar wind heats up Jupiter's atmosphere faster and deeper than previously thought

    NASA
    Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:16 UTC


    Scientists used red, blue and yellow to infuse this infrared image of Jupiter's atmosphere, which was recorded by the Subaru Telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii on Jan. 12, 2017. © NAOJ and NASA/JPL-Caltech

    New Earth-based telescope observations show that auroras at Jupiter's poles are heating the planet's atmosphere to a greater depth than previously thought - and that it is a rapid response to the solar wind.

    "The solar wind impact at Jupiter is an extreme example of space weather," said James Sinclair of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, who led new research published April 8 in Nature Astronomy. "We're seeing the solar wind having an effect deeper than is normally seen."

    Auroras at Earth's poles (known as the aurora borealis at the North Pole and aurora australis at the South Pole) occur when the energetic particles blown out from the Sun (the solar wind) interact with and heat up the gases in the upper atmosphere. The same thing happens on Jupiter, but the new observations show the heating goes two or three times deeper down into its atmosphere than on Earth, into the lower level of Jupiter's upper atmosphere, or stratosphere.


    Sensitive to Jupiters stratospheric temperatures, these infrared images were recorded by the Subaru Telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Areas that are more yellow and red indicate the hotter regions.

    Sensitive to Jupiter's stratospheric temperatures, these infrared images were recorded by the Cooled Mid-Infrared Camera and Spectrograph (COMICS) at the Subaru Telescope on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Areas of the atmosphere that are more yellow and red indicate the hotter regions. Aurora produce enhanced and variable heating at Jupiter's poles. The heating occurs when the magnetosphere and the solar wind interact and deposit energy into Jupiter's atmosphere. Images were captured less than a day apart, from Jan. 11-12, 2017, and illustrate how quickly the atmosphere varied in response to the solar wind.

    Understanding how the Sun's constant outpouring of solar wind interacts with planetary environments is key to better understanding the very nature of how planets and their atmospheres evolve.

    "What is startling about the results is that we were able to associate for the first time the variations in solar wind and the response in the stratosphere - and that the response to these variations is so quick for such a large area," said JPL's Glenn Orton, co-author and part of the observing team.

    Within a day of the solar wind hitting Jupiter, the chemistry in its atmosphere changed and its temperature rose, the team found. An infrared image captured during their observing campaign in January, February and May of 2017 clearly shows hot spots near the poles, where Jupiter's auroras are. The scientists based their findings on observations by the Subaru Telescope, atop the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

    The telescope's Cooled Mid-Infrared Camera and Spectograph (COMICS) recorded thermal images - which capture areas of higher or lower temperatures - of Jupiter's stratosphere.

    "Such heating and chemical reactions may tell us something about other planets with harsh environments, and even early Earth," said Yasumasa Kasaba of Tohoku University, who also worked on the observing team.


    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.

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (9th April 2019), Sophocles (9th April 2019), Wind (26th April 2019)

  27. Link to Post #156
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

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

    Targeted individuals... targeted nations... and the voices in their skulls:

    Quote Maxime Bernier‏Verified account @MaximeBernier

    Remember that Environment Canada study that came out a few weeks ago, on the same day Trudeau’s carbon tax took effect, saying Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet? Seems like everyone around the world got the same memo from Climate Alarmism HQ.


    9:33 AM - 26 Apr 2019
    52 replies 198 retweets 319 likes
    Damn Russian hackers: making the MSM look like they are colluding or being run single-handedly by a very powerful iron fisted individual...

    What's scary is that they seem to be competing for "The Stupid! It Burns!" award.
    "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.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Wind (26th April 2019)

  29. Link to Post #157
    Finland Avalon Member Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th September 2011
    Location
    A dream called Life
    Age
    33
    Posts
    7,888
    Thanks
    88,306
    Thanked 48,964 times in 7,673 posts

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

    When it is hard to differentiate "news" from propaganda you know something has gone terribly wrong with society...

    Those who have the eyes to see, will see the truth. Those who don't, won't.
    "When you've seen beyond yourself, then you may find, peace of mind is waiting there." ~ George Harrison

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Post:

    Hervé (26th April 2019), Philippe (29th April 2019)

  31. Link to Post #158
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Posts
    1,866
    Thanks
    47,641
    Thanked 11,349 times in 1,707 posts

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

    Ummm who would have thought, it seems CO2 is actually good for the planet according to NASA.

    NASA Accidentally Confirms The Worlds Biggest Hoax Just Became a Conspiracy!



    Lisa Haven
    Published on Apr 27, 2019

    Link: https://www.infowars.com/nasa-declar...lobal-ecology/

    Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
    Last edited by BMJ; 29th April 2019 at 05:01.
    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    Intranuclear (29th April 2019), Philippe (29th April 2019)

  33. Link to Post #159
    United States Avalon Member Intranuclear's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th August 2011
    Posts
    376
    Thanks
    1,645
    Thanked 2,326 times in 360 posts

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

    What I don't understand is why is there hysteria over climate change?
    Lets for one moment assume that it is caused by human action regardless of merit.
    They are still talking about severe consequences in 50 to 100 or more years and they want to take action now.
    That's the part that drives me crazy.
    They are somehow assuming that no new technologies will be available in such a time-frame.
    Really!?

    Also, a couple of volcanoes going off will cool the earth. So what now, we now need to fight volcanoes so that the earth warms?
    I am so confused.

    My kids are being taught at school about global warming and when I ask if they are teaching the science, I get blank stares. Science? What is that thing?
    When someone does so much hand waving and insists on buying this item now because it will be too late, they are desperately trying to make their commission.

    When I see a model that can predict the future climate and vegetation growth year over year for say 20 years WITHOUT reprogramming, I will then take it more seriously.

  34. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Intranuclear For This Post:

    BMJ (29th April 2019), Deux Corbeaux (30th April 2019), Didgevillage (29th April 2019), Pam (29th April 2019), Philippe (29th April 2019), Tintin (17th May 2019), Valerie Villars (2nd May 2019), Wind (30th April 2019), wnlight (3rd May 2019)

  35. Link to Post #160
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

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

    Fake climate science and scientists

    by Robert April 28, 2019
    “We’re tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.”
    – Paul Driessen
    ______________
    “For years we’ve been subjected to what can only be described as fake science on climate change, brought to us by folks that can best be described as fake climate scientists,” says Paul Driessen.

    “They engage in practices that real scientists would never follow, and willfully ignore everything the scientific method prescribes as guidelines for honest, replicable, beneficial research. Even worse, these fake/alarmist scientists demand that their suspect work be used to justify energy policies that would upend and devastate modern industrial economies – for no climate benefit … with millions of acres blanketed by wind turbines and solar panels … and with billions of impoverished people being trapped in energy poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death.”
    Driessen’s article this week tackles this problem head-on.
    ____________

    Fake climate science and scientists

    By Paul Driessen

    Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else

    The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” – and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras).

    I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics.

    But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief – or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best.

    Real science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature – at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.

    Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something. It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” – or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change).

    Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate.

    They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers.

    In the realm contemplated by the Chicago yard sign, we ought to be doing all we can to understand Earth’s highly complex, largely chaotic, frequently changing climate system – all we can to figure out how the sun and other powerful forces interact with each other. Only in that way can we accurately predict future climate changes, prepare for them, and not waste money and resources chasing goblins.

    But instead, we have people in white lab coats masquerading as real scientists. They’re doing what I just explained true scientists don’t do. They also ignore fluctuations in solar energy output and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth’s history. They look only (or 97% of the time) at carbon dioxide as the principal or sole driving force behind current and future climate changes – and blame every weather event, fire and walrus death on manmade CO2.

    Even worse, they let their biases drive their research and use their pseudo-science to justify demands that we eliminate all fossil fuel use, and all carbon dioxide and methane emissions, by little more than a decade from now. Otherwise, they claim, we will bring unprecedented cataclysms to people and planet.

    Not surprisingly, their bad behavior is applauded, funded and employed by politicians, environmentalists, journalists, celebrities, corporate executives, billionaires and others who have their own axes to grind, their own egos to inflate – and their intense desire to profit from climate alarmism and pseudo-science.

    Worst of all, while they get rich and famous, their immoral actions impoverish billions and kill millions, by depriving them of the affordable, reliable fossil fuel energy that powers modern societies.

    And still these slippery characters endlessly repeat the tired trope that they “believe in science” – and anyone who doesn’t agree to “keep fossil fuels in the ground” to stop climate change is a “science denier.”

    When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” – while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of, or interest in, “the guiding principles of actual science.”

    Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand…. The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal – and one political party ticket,” she explains.

    The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use … and upend modern economies.

    The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists – a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation … and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less than 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%).

    Thankfully, there are many reasons for hope. For recognizing that we do not face a climate crisis, much less threats to our very existence. For realizing there is no need to subject ourselves to punitive carbon taxes or the misery, poverty, deprivation, disease and death that banning fossil fuels would cause.

    Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality.

    Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefiting nature and humanity – especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production.

    The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century – and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors.

    Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years – and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then.

    Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)

    So if NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio and other egotistical grand-standing politicians and fake climate scientists want to ban fossil fuels, glass-and-steel buildings, cows and even hotdogs – in the name of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” – let them impose their schemes on themselves and their own families. The rest of us are tired of being made guinea pigs in their fake-science experiments.
    Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.
    "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.

  36. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (29th April 2019), Ba-ba-Ra (29th April 2019), Baby Steps (12th May 2019), Bill Ryan (29th April 2019), BMJ (30th April 2019), Deux Corbeaux (30th April 2019), Didgevillage (29th April 2019), meeradas (2nd May 2019), Melinda (7th May 2019), Pam (29th April 2019), Sophocles (29th April 2019), Tintin (2nd May 2019), Valerie Villars (2nd May 2019), Wind (30th April 2019), wnlight (3rd May 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst 1 8 18 20 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