Don’t you hate when Fox News and the other MSM spin-meisters use simple tricks to skew and misrepresent data and statistics? How about when the World Meteorological Organization does it? Or NASA? Or the Journal of Climate? Or GISS? Join James for today’s thought for the day as he shows you some of the grade school level parlour tricks the global warming alarmists use to misrepresent their data and bamboozle the public.
Visit CorbettReport.com
Global warming is an empirical fact accepted by all climate scientists, and the only logical explanation is human activity (emissions of CO2 and methane).
The world’s leading climate science deniers the Koch brothers, funded a study led by a leading climate skeptic (Dr. Muller) expecting to expose the fraud in government climate statistics. In fact, the study proved the opposite. Dr. Muller went on to write an op ed in the NYTimes announcing his conversion and the Koch brothers stopped openly funding anti-climate science propaganda and now do it with “dark money.”
“http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/ reports on the findings of the study.
Wikipedia reports on sponsors: “Berkeley Earth has been funded by unrestricted educational grants totaling (as of December 2013) about $1,394,500.[3] Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.”
The lead researcher was “Richard A. Muller, founder and Scientific Director. Professor of Physics, UCB and Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Muller is a member of the JASON Defense Advisory Group who has been critical of other climate temperature studies before this project.” The other researches (see at Wikipedia) were all top experts in climate science, statistical analysis, etc.
“The Berkeley Earth study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The team’s initial conclusions are the following:[10][11][12][13]
The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre and NASA’s GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. The team found that the urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise, as the planet’s urban regions amount to less than 1% of the land area. The study also found that while stations considered “poor” might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.
Global temperatures closely matched previous studies from NASA GISS, NOAA and the Hadley Centre, that have found global warming trends. The Berkely Earth group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C, just 2% less than NOAA’s estimate. The team scientific director stated that “…this confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.
In an op-ed published in the New York Times on 28 July 2012, Muller announced further findings from the project. He said their analysis showed that average global land temperatures had increased by 2.5 °F (1.4 °C) in 250 years, with the increase in the last 50 years being 1.5 °F (0.8 °C), and it seemed likely that this increase was entirely due to human caused greenhouse gas emissions. His opening paragraph stated:
“Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.” [16]
He said that their findings were stronger than those shown in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Their analysis, set out in five scientific papers now being subjected to scrutiny by others, had used statistical methods which Robert Rohde had developed and had paid particular attention to overcoming issues that skeptics had questioned, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, data selection and data adjustment. In the fifth paper which they now made public, they fitted the shape of the record to various forcings including volcanoes, solar activity and sunspots. They found that the shape best matched the curve of the calculated greenhouse effect from human caused greenhouse gas emissions. Muller said he still found “that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.”[16]”[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
Dr. Muller’s full op ed can be found at the NYTimes.
Endless tripe.
It hasn’t warmed for close to 20 years even though CO2 continued to go up.
It is game over…Mother Nature wins!
Latest data out of both the Japan Meteorological Agency and NASA confirms that global average temperature is now 1.25 degrees centigrade above the 1880s level, and more than a degree centigrade above the average for 1951-1980. Not only is global average temperature increasing but it is accelerating. If you consider the fact that humans have not lived on this planet at temperatures much above three degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels you should be alarmed. like other animals we need food to survive and the crops we rely on cannot adapt quickly enough since the rate of change is too fast.
I’m alarmed at geoengineering. It’s been going on for 60 to 70 years to one degree or another. Looking my skies overhead, the program is aggressive and reports of similar observations around the world confirm is it taking place on a global scale.
The Little Ice Age ended in 1854 and it had been warming since then….ALL NATURAL!
Now we are moving into another LIA which will last for 60-80 years.
You have to go back to the Eeemian period (130,000 years ago ) to find temperatures as high as they are now.
No, one doesn’t have to go back that far at all. The Bronze Age Warming was warmer than the Roman Period Warming, which was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than today.
You really should stop parroting easily de-bunkable memes.
I am not parroting a meme. Global average temperature was lower during the Roman and Bronze ages than it is now. You have to go back to the Eemian. This is not a meme. It is citing data. Big difference.
If what i have said is easily debunkable then debunk it by doing a little bit more than saying it ain’t so.
I see Koch propaganda has taken root in your thinking, even tho the research they funded (the Berkeley Earth Project) proved that govt stats are accurate.
The last decade is the warmest in hundreds of years, and this summer, 5 continents plus the Artic had record heat waves. 90% of the world’s glaciers are melting.
It’s game over for your brain. Oil industry propaganda wins. Climate scientists point out the ten hottest years since records were kept happened since 1997, with 2014 being the hottest yet.
Since 1800, the greenhouse gas CO2 has increased by 40%, being the highest level in 800,000 years. There is no way you can increase greenhouse gases by 40% without warming.
Even Exxon which has spent tens of millions to brainwash the public found in 1977 that greenhouse gas emissions were warming the globe and would cause major problems.
I know you won’t accept the empirical evidence, but the beauty of science is that its facts are facts, whether you believe them or not. The tragedy is the longer we wait to reduce greenhouse gases, the more catastrophic weather will become. It’s time for you to wake up, friend.
Since human generated CO2 is less than 5% of the stunningly small amount already up there, 4 parts in 10,000, the only explanation for the fuss, is that AGW is a government sponsored scam.
The why is the IMF and the World Bank want Global Governance and Global Taxation.
4 parts in 10,000 of polonium 210 is tiny, but it is enough to kill you.
Give it up!
This year is very likely to be the hottest year on record worldwide, the World Meteorological Organisation has said.
Man-made global warming and a strong “El Nino” phenomenon in the Pacific, which pushes up temperatures, mean 2015 has had the hottest January to October on record, with temperatures 1C above pre-industrial levels, preliminary estimates show.
The years 2011 to 2015 have been the warmest five-year period on record, with extreme events such as heatwaves influenced by climate change, the UN’s weather, water and climate body said.
The WMO analysis of 2015, based on three independent datasets including one from the Met Office and University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, is released ahead of crucial climate talks in Paris to secure a new deal to curb rising temperatures.
WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud said: “The state of the global climate in 2015 will make history for a number of reasons.
“Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached new highs and in the northern hemisphere spring 2015 the three-month global average concentration of CO2 crossed the 400 parts per million barrier for the first time.
“2015 is likely to be the hottest year on record, with ocean surface temperatures at the highest level since measurements began. It is probable that the 1C threshold will be crossed. This is all bad news for the planet.”
Killing the messenger will not change the message.
Not at all likely.
2016 is more likely to be colder and snowier than 2015 since the Sun went quiet Solar Cycles #24 is the weakest in at least 100 years..
You ignore empirical evidence which refutes your previous claims to make predictions about the future. That is one way to avoid dealing with reality.
Climate scientists have established that solar activity is not the cause of current global warming.
Your assumption is that solar activity is controlling climate change and that the 40% increase in greenhouse gases since 1800 is not. Actual climate scientists dismiss those assumptions.
In most years there are colder temperatures for 1/3 of the earth and warmer in 2/3 with a net gain in heat. So pointing to a colder winter in the Northeastern US must be taken with record heat waves on all continents, melting glaciers (90% are melting, 10% are not).
In addition the extreme weather caused by global warming will include more floods (North Carolina just had the worst in 1000 yrs) AND more drought (California), more snow, more rain, more violent hurricanes, etc.
Like those who have predicted the earth would come to an end or Jesus would come down at a certain date, you have reacted to the empirical proof of your being wrong by claiming “Well, it WILL be colder…..”
Unless you are a researcher in climate science, you have no basis to make such predictions. And since you have dismissed the empirical findings of the world’s climate scientists, you obviously are getting your information from sources with no scientific credibility, most likely secretly funded by those seeking to fool the public to stop regulation of greenhouse gas emissions such as Exxon (whose own research confirmed man-made global warming in 1977) and the Koch brothers.
Having dumped lethal pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for decades these wealthy oligarchs have shifted the cost (estimated by the World Bank to be over 2 trillion a year) of damage to human health (death and disease)and the environment (polluted water, soil, and air as well as extreme weather). This cost has been shifted to you in higher healthcare costs, lost wages, and higher taxes…but like the useful idiot you seem to be, you defend those who are making you pay for the harm they are doing to you.
The Sun controls climate on Earth….not CO2 and Jesus has nothing to do with it.
CERN and Svensmark demonstrated how the Sun’s magnetic field shields the Earth from cosmic rays which act as cloud nuclei.
CO2 has no effect on climate and no one can prove that it does.
So you dispute what all climate scientists affirm: that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere? The proof is indisputable.
Where did you get your PH.d in climate science and where can I access the research which proves CO2 has no effect on the climate.
Scientificamerica reported:
“But the model (of solar effect on climate) did not exactly reproduce real-world conditions. Whereas sea-surface temperatures in the actual eastern Pacific typically decline by roughly 0.8 degree Celsius under a stronger sun, the model could only replicate about 0.6 degree C of cooling. Nor did the model predict changes where they actually occur on the planet. Other factors are likely at work, Meehl says, and even the best computer model can only begin to approximate the complexity of the actual climate.
Right now, the sun is stuck in a period of extremely low sunspot activity, not unlike the “Maunder Minimum” that may have been responsible for the Little Ice Age that cooled Europe in the late 17th century as well as the fall of imperial dynasties in China. And, for the latter half of the 20th century, the sun’s output remained relatively constant as global temperatures rose—ruling out our star itself as the direct source of global warming.”
So: sun’s output constant; CO2 level up 40% since 1800 (beginning of mass burning of fossil fuels)……………..global warming.
That’s what the scientist have discovered. Clearly, you have never had even one class in climate science and yet you are able to refute the findings of actual climate scientists. I find that hilarious!
WATER VAPOUR is THE greenhouse gas and provides 95% of the effect.
Water vapor and CO2 are in a positive feedback loop: the more CO2, the more evaporation and thus water vapor. They re-enforce each other,but you also ignore another critical fact:
“….even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.” skepticalscience.com
So even tho greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane, warm the atmosphere and thus create more atmospheric water vapor,thus warming the atmosphere even more, 5% of gases which can last for centuries have a much deeper influence,over time,than shortlived water vapor.
You have confused a positive relationship for a distinction: more CO2 means more water vapor, and thus together,they work to raise the temperature.
If we reduced CO2 and methane, there would be less water vapor and thus the two conditions would work together to reduce the temperature.
The charts you site show that since the Industrial Revolution,with massive and increasing burning of fossil fuels and CO2 in the atmosphere, beginning about 1800, not has the CO2 level risen by 40% but temperatures have skyrocketed.
Has climate changed in the past? Yes, no one denies that,but you can find no climate scientists who doubts that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane not only increase moisture in the atmosphere but also create a greenhouse effect, heating the atmosphere. The charts you cite show exactly this correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming.
Since 1800, both have risen sharply and continue to do so. That is indisputable fact, and the only logical explanation,given constant solar output since then, is that human caused greenhouse gases are driving global warming. I know you are a true denier,but facts are facts, whether you accept them or not.
Stop with the pseudoscience!
You defend a Globalist SCAM!
Ottmar Endenhofer of the IPCC let the cat out of the bag in Nov. 2010 when he said that ” Climate Policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection.”
I am quoting actual climate scientists; you are repeating the propaganda lies of the fossil fuel industry.
”
“Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years…..ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago –”In the email Bernstein, a chemical engineer and climate expert who spent 30 years at Exxon and Mobil and was a lead author on two of the United Nations’ blockbuster IPCC climate science reports, said climate change first emerged on the company’s radar in 1981.’
Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.” But it did for 27 yrs after its own research proved climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions.
The scam that Exxon,the Koch brothers, etc have practiced is to deny the empirical evidence their own research confirmed. Global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is an scientific fact and a great danger.
90% of the worlds glacier are melting,the ocean is rising, and record heat waves and catastrophic extreme weather is a great threat and at a cost of trillions. To call the research of actual climate scientists in 180 nations pseudoscience while repeating the cynical lies of the Koch brothers and their shills is both comic and tragic. Your certainty is in inverse relationship to your knowledge and evidence.
““Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” ― Charles Darwin,
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams,
“Once science has been established, once a scientific truth emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way of the world,” Tyson told Colbert. “What I’m saying is, when different experiments give you the same result, it is no longer subject to your opinion. That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.”
You have not ever had even one class in climate science and yet you claim the overwhelming consensus of actual climate scientists is not science.
““Once science has been established, once a scientific truth emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way of the world,” Tyson told Colbert. “What I’m saying is, when different experiments give you the same result, it is no longer subject to your opinion. That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.”
Neil DeGrasse
You believe science is a lie; that is your right.
What you are calling “science’ is proven fraud.
Only climate scientists are qualifed to prove a scientific fraud and they all accept global warming and the fact of greenhouse gas. Even the research of those who have funded the “climate science is a fraud” campaign confirms global warming,as I have detailed and documented.
You are a classic case of “You can’t fix stupid.” Your sole value is comic relief.
No, not all accept the scam. The Earth WAS warming, but that stopped, and that is what the con-artists who call themselves “climate scientists”, continue to push on a gullible, but increasingly disinterested public.
I think you should watch the video again, since you don’t seem to understand what he’s saying.
Keep on repeating an untruth and a numbskull like you will eventually believe it.
I maintain that the Kochs are globalists, including their father Fred who co-opted JBS and then made sure efforts to educate Americans about the elites’ plan for global government system fizzled out.
David Koch was a member of the Earth Initiative, described by some as a sustainability Agenda 21 supporting organization. David is currently a member of the globalist Aspen Institute formerly headed by Club of Rome and UN superwonk Maurice Strong. David is also on the board of Trustees for Rockefeller University. William Koch is known to have at times donated millions more to Democrat politicians than to Republicans, to include environmental lefties. They work both sides.
Having the Kochs fund some of the criticism against the establishment’s climate change religion is not only a good way to prop up the faux left vs right political paradigm and maintain a gatekeeper stonewalling on the larger global totalitarian energy-based economic system in the pipeline, it sets up a Fossil Fuel Industry STRAW MAN Target for litigation modeled after the tobacco industry lawsuits that set a legal precedent successfully winning damages against persons or organizations publicly going against officially accepted science. This strategy of a major lawsuit is actually being pursued now as a possible mode of attack to silence AGW critics. It’s an escalation of the current attack on free speech – with threats of fining and firing critics (e.g. the French meteorologist).
The Koch Bros are absolutely beside the point,
Prof. Friedrich Karl Ewart is just the latest expert to point out that NASA has been altering the land data making the past cooler and the present warmer. In fact, Earth has been cooling since 1940.
But other agencies besides NASA confirm that the plant is now 1.25 degrees centigrade above 1880 levels. Check out the Japan Meteorological agency for a start. And if earth has been cooling since 1940 why is the Greenland ice sheet, west Antarctica ice sheet, California snow pack, the glaciers in Glacier National Park – why are these all melting. you can fool some people with your anti-science nonsense but you can’t fool nature.
True or not, so what?
We’re not doing it. Nobody has been able to prove humans can change climate by how much CO2 they produce. Like you, they just point to naturally occurring changes, as if that were proof of something rather than a symptom.
So you’re saying that burning coal and oil and natural gas doesn’t produce carbon dioxide? LMFAO.
High school chemistry FAIL.
Where did she say burning fossil fuels doesn’t produce CO2?
Reading comprehension fail?
Thank you for answering for her.
So you concede that burning these substances releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million in 1750 to 400ppm now.
In that time global average temperature has increased by 1.45 degrees centigrade.
Geological and ice core records demonstrate a clear relationship between CO2 levels and global average temperature.
So you’ve made my case for me. Thanks.
I didn’t answer for her, I was questioning your assumption, a practice you seem to share with the heads of the IPCC.
Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball points out:
“The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.”
280 ppm is not “marginally lower” than 400ppm!
I suppose 400ppm is not that high when compared to the Cretaceous (ended 65 Ma years ago). However, during the Cretaceous the equatorial regions were largely uninhabitable, sea levels were tens of metres higher and no humans (and very few mammals) were present on the planet.
It’s more nuanced than that, if I correctly understand Ball’s analyses with the limited time I have to invest at the moment, he is essentially making the case that the 280 estimate is just one calculation based on imprecise methods of data extrapolation and the margin of error is high enough that it is not possible to create an accurate model based on such imprecise figures. Margin of error is a bigger statistical factor than you appear to recognize. Using real life examples, he also explained how tremendously wide the variation in readings can be based on location and timing and this is using direct measurement not extrapolations from ice cores or other methods. The scientific process is typically not the fast slam dunk sure bet answer you seem to think it is, esp. with the most complex system ever studied. The IPCC heads and the globalists pulling their strings count on a certain level of public naivete. Ball makes more important points about lack of correlation between rising temps and CO2 in the geologic record, and the ocean as the major sink for CO2 absorption not being factored into the models. There’s more but I’ll leave it at that. Having done scientific meta analyses myself, the IPCC methods appear to be grossly flawed to the point of fraudulence.
But if pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide have been underestimated by such a huge amount, what is there to say that Cretaceous levels of carbon dioxide (where humans and mammals could not survive) haven’t been overestimated by such a large margin? You can’t have your cake and eta it also.
As for IPCC I have some doubts but in the opposite direction. Data is usually several years out of date because of the peer review process and because of the political nature of the process important topics get left out. Methane for example, which is venting from the permafrost at the polar regions at a furious rate was hardly mentioned in the Fifth Assessment in 2013.
As for geoengineering/chemtrails I don’t dispute that this is going on but the effects of this would probably be to mask the amount of global warming through a process known as global dimming.
Think about what you just wrote, even for a minute. If some group/government is trying to mask the alleged problem of global warming by poisoning the earth and its inhabitants by spraying toxic chemicals into our atmosphere, who granted them permission to do such a thing? Obviously, the only group(s) that could do such a thing would be unaccountable government entities, of one sort or another. Yet these same entities (or derivatives of the same) are also funding the fiction of AGW. Why would any thinking person believe anything they espouse?
As I said in my original comment, it is all designed to achieve absolute control and they are very good at creating false opposition to thoroughly confuse or disparage anyone who might object to their ultimate goal.
Finally, you ask who am I? I am an American who is still capable of independent thought. I see the “problem” of AGW as a ruse for further controls to be imposed on the public. There are countless mechanisms already in place by which we are controlled, yet we appear to be willing to believe more and more propaganda under the false hope it will be better for all of us to comply. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There is plenty of evdience for AGW besides those who are behind chemtrails. In any event the people behind the chemtrails are not that bothered about AGW. I don’t see any changes to economic life, do you? I keep hearing about taxes and so on, but where are they? Not that taxes would do anything to sort things out.
At this point in time, I think reducing emissions is wishful thinking. You should look up a scientist called Tim garret. I believe a few years back he published a paper or two which pointed out that the collapse of industrial civilisation would cause a significant leap in warming > 1C because the particulates and other matter in the atmosphere would fall out within a few days. that’s what’s likely to happen with the cessation of the chemtrails programme. A one degree centigrade or more jump in global average temperature putting us within reach of the highest temperatures ever experienced by humans or related species in two million years.
you should look up geoengineeringwatch dot org. And I recommend a video on the Dailymotion dot com about “global dimming.”
I’m sorry to see you have lost your ability to reason, willfully believing the pablum that masquerades as science. One example – “A one degree centigrade or more jump in global average temperature putting us within reach of the highest temperatures ever experienced by humans or related species in two million years.”
What scientific support do you have for such a claim? Do you have verifiable records of temperature recordings for each year of the last 2 million years? Look, even in the last 20 years, the recordings have been intentionally manipulated. What makes you think that anything prior to recorded history (~ last 6,000 years) should be taken at face value? It is made up out of whole cloth, but as long as there are people like you willing to buy it, it will continue to be offered as truth.
On the basis of what you have posted there’s no way you can know anything outside your immediate sensory experience, and even then you can’t rely on that because you might be hallucinating, so I think you are in the most unenviable position.
As expected, I challenge you to offer scientific proof of what you claim and this is your response? Truly pathetic. If there was any real science for anything you claim, it would not be difficult to make a scientific argument, but as you have so convincingly demonstrated, you have nothing to offer.
I have posted loads of data but you have just ignored it and, Moreover you have asked how anybody can believe anything outside their sensory experience. There is little further I can do for you.
None of which is scientific. Your “data” is not proof of any causative effect from carbon dioxide, that is the crux of the issue. Just because someone with scientific credentials alleges AGW is true is not scientific proof of anything, At best, AGW is a working hypothesis, scientifically speaking; it is far from a proven fact. The idea that any scientist, who is true to his/her field of study, would portray AGW as fact just shows the lack of integrity in the publicly funded scientific community.
I did try several times to reply to your point about chemtrails/geoengineering but my posts got blocked and deleted by Activist Post, perhaps because I linked to a website run by man called Dane Wigington – geoengineeringwatch dot org
No. I’m saying CO2 can’t change climate.
But you’re not backing up your statements with any facts.
Maybe you meant to respond to Dale or you didn’t read my post? The Kochs are part of a psy op and that psy op is being used to not only fragment critical discussion, now it’s being used to legally silence AGW critics. I was responding to Dale’s tired use of the Koch boogeymen, which gets a lot of traction in Huff P, Alternet, The Nation, etc, and Europe. Arguing about the endless details of climate science or the politics while forgetting the Big Trap is exactly what TPTB are angling for. Good point about Ewart, though.
Sorry about that. I see Koch Bros and my eyes roll up in my head.
Using them as boogeymen has become so inane and so tiresome that as soon as they are mentioned I check out.
I absolutely agree with your analysis.
Why would CO2 be harmful; plants (our food supply) require it to survive. That’s the key point no one wants to admit. Meanwhile climate scientists, who have not been the recipient of various government grants on a global scale, have stated that we are entering a cooling period. Contrary to propaganda, the arctic, antarctic, and Greenland ice is actually increasing, not decreasing, and polar bear populations have actually increased since Al Gore issued his warning, although Fukushima radiation is gradually killing off all mammals and marine life in areas abutting the NE Pacific Ocean.
I’m surprised that anyone would be so gullible as to believe the idea that global warming (now known by the more encompassing term climate change) is scientific. Show me the actual science behind it, most of what is offered as scientific is pure conjecture based on questionable (man-made, i.e. artificial) climate models, which regularly fail to predict or come close to replicating actual climate observations. Thus, these models are the primary aspect of climate change that is man-made and the idea that we should believe them as scientific fact is sheer lunacy.
Who benefits? Is it just “Big Money” interests? No, it’s anyone that gets a piece of the action that will be doled out by the controlling international body, whoever that is determined to be. The issue is control, just as 9/11 was designed to deceive Americans into relinquishing their freedoms so that it would be possible to implement more unconstitutional controls, the notion of climate change is designed to implement global controls on the world’s population.
As with any issue involving control, there is no desire to actually solve the problem (if there was one in the first place), to the contrary, it is to perpetuate the problem so continuing and more restrictive actions will need to be taken. After all, what is the true nature of government? As George Washington is reported to have said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force.”
That observation about government is self-evident and to assume otherwise will only place our remaining freedoms in peril.
No, it can be shown in the laboratory that carbon dioxide has heat trapping properties. It was first postulated by a Swedish chemist back in the 1800s and was demonstrated by US arms manufacturers when developing the first heat seeking missiles.
The link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures can be demonstrated by the geological and ice core record. models are useful but if anything they have understated the seriousness of the situation. so we are looking at an ice free Arctic Ocean possibly next year when models forecast something like 2080.
So what if carbon dioxide has heat trapping qualities, so does oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor. And being the least prevalent (by far) of these four quantities in our atmosphere, I see a slight change in carbon dioxide levels as being inconsequential. Just because someone’s model says otherwise is proof of nothing, other than their model fails to replicate the observable atmospheric conditions. In a nutshell, their model is garbage and should be properly disposed of, just like we would handle any other refuse.
An ice free Arctic Ocean – how long are you and Al Gore going to push that canard on the general public? The trend in Arctic ice has not been declining, it has been increasing. If anything is happening, we are seeing cooling occurring and that is directly related to the cyclical nature of the heating and cooling of the sun.
Laboratory experiments are typically only indicators of one variable out of countless in a complex system. That’s why it’s rarely the case that medical science in vitro or even animal models translate into treatment options for human beings. I consider the environment far more complex than the human body, which itself is such an incredibly complex system that researchers are highly compartmentalized in order to master just one tiny aspect.
What of geoengineering? How can any models be even remotely accurate predictors if this important variable is omitted?
Carbon dioxide makes up for less than one-half of one percent of our atmosphere…think about that for a few minutes or, until you realize just how asinine the whole carbon dioxide AGW crap truly is.
Can you believe that when “global warming”, and “climate change” where not working as “buzzwords” I heard a scientist trying to invoke “climate pollution” as another extortion catch phrase.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
I agree, it is an “answer” looking for a problem, a problem that will sufficiently resonate with the public such that they “demand” action. If this wasn’t such a serious example of collective brainwashing, it would be pathetic. As it is, it is truly sinister because nothing good will come out of any “action” or “remedies” that are imposed. It is a play for control, please do not think otherwise.
This is about different statistics contradicting climate change or about statistics as a scientific tool? Show what you have or shoot down you website.
Who is dji9424 and why is Activist Post acting like the New York Times and deleting replies to his/her comments?
Might you be the author of a Wales Forward Planning report using Agenda 21 Sustainability language and Regional Planning? If true, that’s your prerogative but you have been led to or stumbled on an awake group of people who don’t agree with the tyranny behind the system. That would also explain why you refuse to acknowledge geoengineering which epitomizes the hubris and arrogance of the scientific dictatorship (technocracy) that is behind Agenda 21 and whatever other incarnations it takes on.
No, I am not the author of any such report.
Anecdotal observations do nothing to prove the accuracy of AGW theories on climate change cause and effect. There is no human being on this planet who KNOWS what effect very small increases of CO2 have on the climate. The IPCC tells its scientists to start out with the assumption of AGW and then work backwards to find evidence to support the assumption, that’s not science.
How can climate change be accurately studied and modeled with geoengineering going on? It’s the elephant you again refuse to address.
geoengineeringwatch is run by a guy who worked for Bechtel and is disinformation on climate. Wiggington also pushes Methane Madness….he’s not credible himself and he tried to smear Michael Murphy (saying he is a heroin addict,) of What In The World Are They Spraying and the follow up called Why In The World Are They Spraying, so he could take over the movement.
Greenhouse gas in Science
Expand
greenhouse gas
Any of the atmospheric gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect by
absorbing infrared radiation produced by solar warming of the Earth’s
surface. They include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous
oxide (NO 2), and water vapor. Although greenhouse gases occur naturally
in the atmosphere, the elevated levels especially of carbon dioxide and methane
that have been observed in recent decades are directly related, at least
in part, to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and the
deforestation of tropical forests.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
I did not cherry pick the above definition, yet even though it alludes to the working fiction of AGW, it does describe nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor as greenhouse gases. Clearly, if carbon dioxide was the only gas capable of absorbing infrared radiation from the sun, we would be in a world of hurt since it only makes up 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere (400 parts per million). Moreover, if it was the only component of our atmosphere that could absorb infrared radiation, why wouldn’t the temperature of Venus be much hotter than what can be explained by its closer proximity to the sun, since Venus’ atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide?
Actually, based on scientific studies, it can be shown that carbon dioxide loses its heat at a faster rate than the other components of the atmosphere, thus the whole idea of carbon dioxide being problematic with regard to heat conservation is questionable at best.
Please look more closely at the “data” you are using for your argument, it is extremely weak, certainly nothing that could be described as causative.
Every time I Fart, I am worried about The EPA fining me. The Methane, living Mammals put out, should be Regulated.
They fooled you completely with lies and half truths, presented completely out of context, but, in a plausible manner. I like FACTS wayyymore!