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

[kfm27917]

The Christmas Gift That Climate Grinches Can't Abide

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitic...hes-cant-abide

[sdv]

Posted by rgray222 (here)

Posted by kfm27917 (here)
https://issues.org/climate-change-sc...ielke-ritchie/

How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch With Reality

Scientists often work with assumptions, and when those assumptions are incorrect, everything built upon them can be flawed. In this story they it appears that the emission models were wrong from the start. It is disheartening and concerning to see the media and politicians treat scientific models as infallible. They rarely make efforts to refine or update these models, yet they continue to scream that the sky is falling. The COVID pandemic demonstrated what can happen when scientific projections used to build models are wrong, and the world is still paying for the consequences of those intentional mistakes. To rebuild trust in science, it is essential for experts to transparently explain how models are developed, acknowledge errors, and quickly update them as new information becomes available. Honesty and transparency are the keys to creating a better and more sustainable future. The environment is important, politics, and university grant money need to be removed from all scientific "models".

In the true scientific method, you publish your theory and it is interrogated and even criticised through peer review. On climate change, and other subjects, an echo chamber was created around the 'humans causing climate change, i.e. warming, and mainly through carbon'. That was a corruption of the scientific method. Also, the public (and all politicians) were manipulated with scaremongering and brainwashing, and any criticism of the climate change model was suppressed by mainstream media and by funding being witheld. Perhaps we should learn the lesson that people cannot be trusted, return to the true scientific method, and put guardrails around it.

What has emerged from the climate change mess is that the public will find the evidence that is being suppressed and will educate themselves. The danger is that popularity should not govern whose voice gets heard. There are a lot of people with loud voices and a sizable following who broadcast sensationalism without regard for accuracy. They are popular, perhaps, because people do not trust the scientific community ... with good reason.

Climate does change on this planet, drastically. Are we building resilient communities that can adapt to warming and cooling? Are we being more careful with the resources we have? Why are we spending so many resources on killing and destruction and creating a billionaire class instead of building better and doing better, sustainably, so that we can adapt to changing climate?

[Mike Gorman]

I have a rule-of-thumb refutation of the 'Climate Religion' - for what this is worth, I know opinions are rather like anuses, we all have one & so forth, blah blah. However it occurs to me that there is a primary logical/intellectual error at work here that characterizes ALL of the Climate arguments which if wielded deftly, if presented in the right context completely destroys this faction's ongoing claims.
My refutation goes thus:
1. Is our atmosphere, being a collection of different gasses, all combined to form our biological medium, which happens to allow life to proliferate on this planet, is this in fact designed for humanity's convenience?
This might appear to be a harmless question, at first reading, but this occurred to me a few years back, I was considering just what the Net Zero 'scientists' were proposing, what the EU climate policies were being based upon.
Just like the Biblical absolutists, who believe absolutely in the literal words of the Bible, these climate religion people come from this point, that our atmosphere is behaving badly because we have disturbed the 'golden balance', the sacred natural order.
However, if we embrace the true tenets of the Scientific Method, the logic of our natural philosophy, then our atmosphere is a natural collection of elements, operating in accordance with natural forces, it does not 'obey' any particular law, apart from the wild, natural forces which act upon it, right?
The Sun drives all of these processes, the Sun is the primary source of ALL energy in our 'Solar System' - our atmosphere observes the rule of the Sun.
Any talk of 'imbalance' implies there is an ideal balance to begin with: which is demonstratable to be false.
Ask your next Net Zero acolyte if they believe our atmosphere to be gifted/designed for humanity: this is the essential flaw, & anti-Science position of this religion.
The vast, incredibly vast in human terms, cycles of climate are not poised to allow human society to flourish, we have glacial, & Inter-glacial periods, the Net Zero, & overall Climate faction is in fact a religion, it has its origins among the ecological activists (I am personally sympathetic with much of this, but that is a different story) - these people are entitled to believe what they wish, but they are NOT entitled to present their ideas as "Science", nor to dictate political/social policy to the rest of us, and that is the entire point.

[Rizotto]

"Have you heard the good news? The climate hoax is falling apart! The cultists are losing their weather god religion in record numbers! . . . But it ain't over yet. Joining us today to discuss the historic disaster that unfolded at COP30 and outline what's coming next is Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com."

The UN Climate Hoax Is Finally Over

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xOWde9IpLDg

[norman]

Jefferey Jaxen - The HighWire

Episode 457: THE CLIMATE AGENDA


Happy New Year! The HighWire is kicking off 2026 by releasing ‘Jefferey Jaxen Investigates: A Rush to Green Energy, Part 1’ — normally exclusive to HighWire+ subscribers — for free.

We've been told that climate change is the greatest threat to our planet, and that it's our fault. But what's really driving the rush to green energy? Jefferey Jaxen pulls back the curtain on the politics, the money, and the agenda behind it all.

Share this documentary with your friends and family. The conversation is just getting started. And watch Part 2 at HighWire.Plus.

https://rumble.com/v73qlya-episode-4...html?start=226



Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v71jxy2/?pub=1yatds&start=226

[John Hilton]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
It might be the case that you're accessing Avalon via multiple tabs

That is correct. I keep multiple tabs open because I find it time-consuming to find the page that I want or a post that I made previously. I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Tintin]

From Peter Clack via his X account. This is a chap who really knows his onions, and presented in a very comprehensible way

Everything meaningful humans ever accomplished:
music, architecture, agriculture, technology, science, the pyramids; all occurred in the current Holocene interglacial warm period. Some humans believe we can change the world permanently. The next ice age will show that folly. I've been highlighting these massive natural swings during the Holocene on orbital timescales. CO₂ may be a factor but not the cause.

This gives a strong foundation for comparing the Holocene's shorter climate rollercoaster rides, like the Roman and Medieval warm periods - with booming agriculture and expanding empires. The Little Ice Age was a harsh counterpoint, bringing famines and societal strains across Europe. All the while, CO₂ was steady around 270 to 285 ppm. These dramatic ups and downs happened purely on natural variability—solar output, volcanic aerosols blanketing the planet and oceanic and atmospheric circulation flips—without needing CO₂ to budge.

Contrast the Holocene regional jumps of 0.5 to 1 degree versus full glacial-interglacial jumps of 4 to 6 degrees globally. The former are just white noise in a longer-term cooling trend after the Holocene thermal maximum (9,000 - 5,000 years ago) but they still packed real punches. Greenland ice cores show Medieval temperature peaks rival or exceed recent decades in the North Atlantic. Tree rings and stalagmites capture the frigid cold swings of the Little Ice Age in Europe.

Warmth delivered prosperity, with Roman vineyards in Britain or Viking farms on Greenland. Cold led to hardship, with the Thames freezing and crop failures, triggering migration wars. Modern warmth supports billions better than any previous cold snaps ever could. Why do we celebrate ancient warm eras as golden ages but frame today's milder shifts as catastrophic? Natural precedent shows warmth isn't inherently destructive—the only real changes come from adaptation and scale. Humans are marvelously adaptive. The rest of the world is already adapted via evolution.

Shorter-term Holocene fluctuations like the Roman (250 BC-AD 400) and Medieval warm periods (950-1250) and Little Ice Age (1400-1850) are fascinating when stacked against the grander vision of orbital-driven interglacial cycles. They highlight how Earth's climate has always been dynamic on multiple timescales, with warm spells and cold snaps occurring naturally, mostly without major CO₂ shifts.

Ice core dat shows atmospheric CO₂ levels have been remarkably stable throughout, hovering around 270 to 285 ppm. CO₂ was essentially flat at 280 ppm during the Roman and Medieval periods, similar to the early Holocene baseline. Even through the protracted cold of the Little Ice Age, with its Thames frost fairs, advancing Alpine glaciers and crop failures, CO₂ didn't drop significantly—it remained in the same narrow range. These warm periods were not driven by rising CO₂ levels. It was other factors, like solar variability, volcanic activity influencing aerosols, ocean circulation shifts (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) and other natural variability.

By contrast, the broader Holocene picture shows we are in a gradual long-term cooling trend after the earlier much warmer Holocene Optimum. Temperatures then were often 0.5 to 1 degree warmer globally than the pre-industrial baseline. Regional proxies capture those large-scale blips superimposed on an overall slow decline. The Roman and Medieval periods were relatively sudden highs, the Little Ice Age a deeper low (the coldest times of the Holocene for parts of the Northern Hemisphere).

Modern warming coincides with CO₂ rising from 280 ppm to over 420 ppm now. Past warm periods supported thriving societies, Roman agricultural expansion and Viking settlements in Greenland in the Medieval warm period. These were regional in many cases though stronger in the North Atlantic and Europe. Nor did the planet have today's populations, urban infrastructure or modern biodiversity.

This graph represents the Holocene period:

[Tintin]

Global 'boiling': the grift that keeps on taking

I see the enemies of humanity (Sauron's minions, the Uruk-Hai) are gathering in Davos - again - and are getting their collective underwear in a twist over *checks notes*: 'trust', 'misinformation'/'disinformation', 'cybersecurity', and blah blah blah. Seems climate related issues aren't at the forefront this time although, by now, in answer to the thread OP: clearly, it's grift, deceit, theft, name it what you will.

Fortunately we have truth-tellers like Peter Clack and, here, Chris Martz, to help clear the fog (pardoning the pun ):

Source: https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/2013356713215168920

He's responding to some baloney that a Miguel Godeeris posted, which can be seen by visiting the thread itself.

Note: the 'wink' smilies that the forum software automatically generates should be read only as closed parenthesis ie )

-_____________________________-

This line of reasoning, or lack thereof, makes no sense unless you have room temperature IQ.

Your argument is that the background warming of the Arctic, which has occurred at a faster rate than the mid-latitudes, is causing the latitudinal temperature gradient to weaken. This supposedly causes the polar jet stream to sag like a pair of old titties and displaces frigid Arctic air southward into the mid-latitudes.

As cute as this sounds, it's garbage. 🗑️

Claiming that warming causes more cold snaps:

1⃣ Violates the First Law of Thermodynamics

2⃣ Does not square with fluid dynamics; specifically, the thermal wind relation.

3⃣ Is not supported by observational data of cold air outbreak frequency or “jet stream waviness.”

4⃣ Is not consistent with earlier predictions by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Here are the facts:

For decades, scientists predicted that [man-made] global warming would reduce both the frequency and severity of Arctic outbreaks. The reason for this, of course, is because the First Law of Thermodynamics maintains that increasing radiative forcing pushes the Earth system towards gaining energy, not losing it (cooling). And, to get a cold air outbreak, it requires a plentiful supply of Arctic air. If the source region for it is warming up rapidly, then the chances of that cold air making its way into the mid-latitudes becomes vanishingly small.

In Chapter 9 of their 2001 Third Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded,

🗨️ “𝐴𝑛 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒔 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝒍𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒔. 𝑁𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡-𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒.”

And, Table 9.6 right above that says that it is 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆𝒍𝒚 that there will be “fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas” throughout the 21st century.

🔗https://ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-09.pdf (p. 575)

However, contrary to this prediction, we still get quite a number of cold snaps each winter, and it happens often enough that laypeople began to notice a major disconnect between what scientists predicted would happen 25-30 years ago and what is occurring now. Following the brutal winters of 2009-10, 2013-14 and 2014-15, “scientists” began trying to explain away these cold air outbreaks as being an artifact of global warming rather than being an expression of internal variability in spite of it.

The hypothesis that cold snaps are becoming more common because the polar jet stream is getting “locked” into certain high- and mid-latitude blocking configurations for longer periods of time is far from scientific fact. It is, at best, a very weakly supported hypothesis.

The thermal wind relation below states that a large meridional temperature gradient (∂𝑇/∂&#119910 implies stronger vertical shear (∂𝑢/∂&#119911, and therefore greater baroclinicity:

∂𝑢/∂𝑧 = −(𝑔/𝑓&#119905 (∂𝑇/∂&#119910

The Eady growth rate, given by σ = 0.3098 (𝑓/&#119873 |∂𝑢/∂𝑧|, shows that the rate of baroclinic wave amplification depends on the vertical shear and static stability (&#119873 profile of the troposphere (lower atmosphere). Hence, a greater latitudinal temperature gradient (larger Δ&#119879 produces stronger shear, larger σ, and a more amplified trough-ridge pattern.

The dynamical underpinning of this process can be understood reading pages 51-68 here:

🔗https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...0/01/nr-77.pdf

There is also the observational problem.

Oldenborgh et al. (2019) found that cold waves have become milder over the last 50-100 years across the Northern Hemisphere virtually everywhere, particularly since the 1980s.

🔗https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/ab4867

As far as jet stream “waviness” is concerned, recent research published in AGU Advances found that,

🗨️ “𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 1960 𝑡𝑜 1980... 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑗𝑒𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑛 𝐻𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ∼2010 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑗𝑒𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠... 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑦 𝐴𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 1990𝑠. [𝑶]𝒖𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒖𝒈𝒈𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒏 𝒍𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒋𝒆𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒘𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒏 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒋𝒆𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒘𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝑨𝒓𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏. 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝒋𝒆𝒕 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝒘𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒂𝒔𝒕 𝒅𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒅𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝑨𝒓𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒉𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅.”

🔗https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2024AV001399

Put simply, you have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about.

-________________________-

Take that IPCC, and its slavish adherents