October 18, 2019 at 4:02 am #158335
Very interesting topic and very good postings.October 18, 2019 at 8:14 am #158342
The sources relied upon and listed above, i respectfully submit are not recognized as authoritative by the scientific community as a whole nor any respected scientific journals. I do not say this simply because I disagree with their methodology (lack of acceptable and reliable support for their conclusions), but based upon what they actually admit. Take religion and politics out of the analysis and look purely at the science with respect to the last 500 years as compared to the last 200 years. Read the journal Nature and other reputable sources. Not sources that I say are reputable, sources that are recognized internationally as authoritative. TPTB is a concept that has no place in this discussion, in my opinion Wolf, because it is so broad as to be undefinable. As for the opinions of Rush, he is not a scientist, only an entertainer.October 18, 2019 at 9:04 am #158343Steven BParticipant
“Moreover, the incorruptible and objective satellite temperature records show only modest warming starting in the late 1970s, which stopped roughly 10 years ago, with more recent declines. That is consistent with temperature proxy records found in nature, such as tree rings and ice cores. But that diverges significantly from the corruptible and subjectively compiled land based records, the repeated manipulation of which has prompted several prominent climate scientists to call for an investigation. Perhaps Gleick’s skills in falsification can be found more broadly among his colleagues.
In addition, the work of the UN’s IPCC is based on numerous climate models that attempt to project temperatures decades into the future. Those models are all based on the circular assumption that the theory of man caused global warming is true. As 16 world leading climate scientists recently reported in a letter to the Wall Street Journal,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/#29d488656140
I re-iterate again that scientists that DO NOT support anthropomorphic climate change are NOT even given consideration by the IPCC. That is not science.
“Call it faux science facilitating fake news—or just call it dangerous. Either way it amounts to a shocking revelation: Scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) falsified data to dupe world leaders into signing the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The NOAA revelations are shades of the 2009 “Climategate” scandal, in which hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit indicated that its scientists were suppressing information contrary to their global-warming agenda. A similar batch of 5,000 emails released in 2011 showed likewise and, furthermore, reported Forbes, illustrated that the “scientists view global warming as a political ‘cause’ rather than a balanced scientific inquiry” and that “many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.” ” https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/
You don’t need to be a scientist to use a chart created by scientists – history shows that climate is cyclical:
“Climate Change: Global warming is “settled science,” we hear all the time. Those who reject that idea are “deniers.” But as new evidence trickles out from peer-reviewed science studies, the legs beneath the climate change hypothesis — that the earth was doing just fine until carbon-dioxide spewing human beings came along — is increasingly wobbly.
A new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience purports to support action by global governments to reduce carbon dioxide output in order to lower potential global warming over the next 100 years or so. But what it really does is undercut virtually every modern argument for taking radical action against warming.
Why? The study admits that the 12 major university and government models that have been used to predict climate warming are faulty.
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models,” said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford and one of the authors of the study. “We haven’t seen that in the observations.” https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-who-are-the-deniers-now/October 18, 2019 at 5:00 pm #158358Chris422🤠Participant
Telegraph columnist James Delingpole says Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a “political organisation rather than a scientific one which uses the science to its own ends”.
Leading climate scientists said this morning they were more certain than ever before that mankind was the main culprit for global warming and warned the impact of greenhouse gas emissions would linger for centuries.
A report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), played down the fact temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15 years, saying there were substantial natural variations that masked a long-term warming trend.
Commenting on the report, Telegraph columnist James Delingpole said: “All the computer models the IPCC has used in its 25 years have predicted global warming much greater than has been observed.
“This represents a problem because what it means is all these insistent claims they have been making that we need to take urgent measures now to deal with this unprecedented problem seem to be based on junk science.
“The IPCC stands or falls on its computer models. There is no other evidence out there that global warming is any kind of problem. That it exists only in the imagination of the people who programme those computer models and the scientists who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem.
“What we see in this report is that the models aren’t working, which suggests the entirety of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory is flawed.”
Get the latest headlines http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
The Lack of Science in the Scientific Consensus: The Case of the National Climate Assessment
The Heritage Foundation
Global-warming alarmists continually refer to a “scientific consensus” to support drastic policy proposals. They insist on peer-reviewed publications as the standard for debate, while ignoring that standard when the standard will not support their hysterical claims. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report had notable examples, such as Amazongate (where rain-forest sensitivity to small changes in rainfall were well publicized, but were based on a blog post from an activist website); and the widely hyped, but wildly unscientific, claims of the imminent demise of Himalayan glaciers. The federal government also publishes a climate assessment report. Patrick Michaels of Cato and Harold Doiron of the Right Climate Stuff team have analyzed the draft of the most recent National Climate Assessment and found its scientific rigor to be wanting.
Climate change denied by over 30,000 petitioning scientists
Alan Jones from 2GB radio Australia reveals a huge petition signed only by scientists, which goes against the UN agenda.October 18, 2019 at 9:54 pm #158370Amy HParticipant
As Steven mentions models, there’s something to address. Do you recognize how incredibly difficult it is to make a model? Imagine trying to make a model predicting climate change. It’s impossible to account for all the variables because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to know the variables! This is a well known problem for all models for prediction. This is what scientists use to predict the future (at times). Good luck. The likelihood of coming up with an actual real outcome is strikingly low. A great modeler will tell you such. Harken back to the “giant waves don’t happen at the frequency mariners say because our models say it’s not possible”. Wrong! There’s more examples of shit models if you want them.
How many times has science been wrong? More than it’s been right! It matters little that the majority of scientists claim global warming is accelerated by human kind. It’s not a majority rules field. It’s a field of constant revision and replication. It never stops. Hell, they still test aspects of gravity! I know of many reputable scientists who think the current assessment that human kind is accelerating global warming at an alarming rate is highly suspect. Why would anyone ever think scientists agree anyways? They rarely do. They argue, battle, betray, belittle each other over interpreting statistics (as just 1 small example)not to mention a whole host of other petty things they fight over.
This is political. And politicians lie. And you’ve got “science writers” dumbing down concepts in science that frankly can’t be dumbed down as the meaning gets lost (at the very least). I live with a scientist and when he speaks science, it’s like trying to learn Swahili. Try reading a paper in the journal of immunology! If you can grasp the abstract, that’s amazing!
Sure read Nature, ecology, American fisheries, wildlife management, etc. it’s good to know what the smart people are working on but don’t take articles in any of them as gospel. Those journals have bias people working and editing just like every other job. Read the literature and read thousands of pages. Then YOU will start to understand what’s going on with this global warming situation. It’s complex and it takes years of study to even remotely understand a bit.
For the love of life, stop trying to espouse something very few people have a slight grasp upon. Try to be a good global citizen and be thankful you’ve been given the gift of life. Don’t let jackass politicians determine your happiness….because that’s what’s happening.October 18, 2019 at 11:28 pm #158373KnobbyModerator
Matthew, there is a reason why the scientific community as a whole, as you say, lean the way they do. The voice of skeptics is muted by the media for one, but there is another major reason.
Award winning meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, drew a lot of anger for his doubts that humans caused global warming, which he called a “hoax” and a “scam.” He believes it is cooked up by environmentalists with a liberal, political agenda, and has chastised the media for running with it.
John Coleman in an interview on CNN answered the journalist’s claim that 97% of climate scientists believe in man made global warming, saying its a manipulated figure. He states this on the following video,
“The government puts out about 2 1/2 billion dollars directly for climate research every year. It only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis of the Democratic Party’s position, so they don’t have any choice. If you’re gonna get the money, you gotta support their position. Therefore, 97% of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is. its real simple, but that doesn’t mean it’s right, that doesn’t make it true, that only makes it bought and paid for. The money goes in circles. . . . There are 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition that says it is not valid, that my position is correct, and we’ll keep battling and we will prevail in time.”
The Weather Channel Founder & Scientist John Coleman on CNN: "Climate change is not happening. There is no significant man-made global warming now. There hasn't been any in the past, and there's no reason to expect any in the future."
Posted by PragerU on Friday, June 23, 2017October 19, 2019 at 1:41 am #158378
Knobby, John Coleman had a degree in journalism, and no education in the sciences. He did read the weather forecast as a TV weather man for many years. Coleman also believed that climate was not affecting the polar bears, that polar bears were increasing in number and that the polar ice caps were not shrinking. These beliefs were proven wrong and Coleman was called out on it.
Climate change is not a political position solely expoused by one political party. Numerous republicans in Congress have come to accept global warming as a fact.
I am not a Democrat or a Republican. Instead I chose to make up my own mind on domestic and global issues. Many who deny global warming do so because they view it as part of a liberal or Democratic agenda and they fear being labeled as such. Let me suggest a different view. Ask yourself what is the downside to limiting pollution, greenhouse gases, and ozone depleting chemicals on a global basis? To do so does not handicap American business or agriculture.
It is beyond debate that our planet has one atmosphere, that our oxygen is produced by photosynthesis in our forests and oceans, that forests are shrinking globally, and that the oxygen productivity of our oceans is decreasing. The loss of polar ice is having a drastic affect on the food web and the bio productivity of our oceans. These are all problems that we have the power to address as a global community. We can debate how best to address these problem, but we cannot dismiss them as nonexistent or expect that our planet can always fix itself.
Put away religion and politics on this issue.October 19, 2019 at 2:05 am #158379October 19, 2019 at 4:14 am #158380WolfParticipant
Matthew… I agree with your passion and sympathise with your fears.
Nobody is denying climate change, the debate is on human influence upon it.
IMO however, even this is a distraction from the real issues at hand.
Pollution of the lifeblood of the earth, water, is ongoing with entire ecosystems being destroyed by Big $… where is the outcry?
Our oceans are being stripped of life by overfishing… where is the outcry?
Our forests are being plundered and replaced with mono cultures like palm oil… where is the outcry?
Our soils are being depleted and poisoned by herbicides and pesticides to support similar monocultures… where is the outcry?
Our aquifers are being poisoned by fracking (especially noticeable here in Australia, the driest continent on earth)… where is the outcry?
Plastics are killing birds and fish in unbelievable numbers every day… where is the outcry?
All these issues are in our faces and are issues we can do something about (unlike climate change where the impact of the sun swamps anything we humans are capable of). Why are they being largely ignored?
For the same reason the furphy of climate change is being fostered… $$$
The parasites of human endeavour have figured out a way to tax the very air we breathe and distract us from the real issues they are profiting off at the same time.October 19, 2019 at 8:31 am #158382
What was Australia’s role in meddling in American politics in behalf of Democrats?
What Did AG Bill Barr Find in Australia on the Obama Spygate Scandal?
“The Australian Ambassador back in May acknowledged that President Trump announced that Bill Barr will be conducting an investigation into the origins of Spygate and offered Barr assistance.”
Source: Gateway Pundit, by Jim Hoft, October 18, 2019October 19, 2019 at 8:39 am #158385
More Climate Change for financial gain
Besides Australia’s role in meddling in America’s elections and involvement in the American Spying Scandal, of the three major complaints being investigated involves … Clinton political climate change?
A third complaint concerns what Smith describes as “the $10 million financial advantage dishonestly obtained by deception between April 1, 2008, and Sept. 25, 2008, at Washington, D.C., New York, New York, and Canberra Australia involving an MOU between the Australian government, the “Clinton Climate Initiative,” and the purported “Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Inc.”
“This investigation on Alexander Downer is much more extensive than we expected.”
Source: What Did AG Bill Barr Find in Australia on the Obama Spygate Scandal? by Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, October 18, 2019
Note: [former Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs] Alexander Downer, Liberal Party leaderOctober 19, 2019 at 8:49 am #158386
Edmonton Oil Workers Drive Convoy of Trucks, Loudly Honk Horns to Protest Greta Thunberg’s Climate Change ‘Strike’
Source: Gateway Pundit, by Cristina Laila October 18, 2019
State of Fear for Profit, Power and Control
“Climate Change” followers out themselves as those who have succumbed to the defeatist gloom and doom posture but the purveyors stand to make unearthly amounts of wealth they stand to gain immensely.
Featured in the old WWII photo is Heinreich Himmler. Who was he and what was his role in WWII Nazi Germany?
Are photo similarities just a simple coincidence?
Why use photos with children?
Why use a child with such stunning familiarity?
Symbolism will be their downfall!October 19, 2019 at 11:31 am #158393Shannon SParticipant
And let’s not forget the continuous poisoning of our oceans from the still uncontrolled release of radiation from Fukushima. The mainstream doesn’t speak a word of it.October 19, 2019 at 11:41 am #158394KnobbyModerator
Matthew, you wrote, “Many who deny global warming”
Its man made global warming Matthew. This gets phrased badly too often to knock down the so called “climate deniers.” There was a moderate increase. Citing downsides of global warming is not evidence that man is the primary cause, that the primary cause could be a natural Earth cycle. Did you know that over the last 20 years the temperature on Mars has risen by one degree Fahrenheit? Since 1880 Earth’s temperature has risen two degrees Fahrenheit.
You ask what’s the downside of limiting green house gases, etc.? Yes, global warming has a downside, but the warmer periods in Earth’s history are also its most productive. None of these climate alarmists acknowledge the upside. Mankind has flourished in recent centuries due to this warmer period in human history. It has longer growing periods, increased evaporation resulting in increased rainfall, whereas as cooler periods are drier and less productive.
The comments John Coleman made about funding money being cut if studies fail to back the prevailing climate alarms did not originate from him. And scientists who don’t tow the line can find themselves ostracized in a politicized world of science. Dredging up Coleman’s comments about polar bears is not properly addressing the veracity of his explanation of why 97% of all this climate alarmist research walking in lockstep.
Coleman commented about the scientists who signed the petition objecting to these alarmist climate studies. The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere”.
None of even the most conservative models 20 years ago predicting temperature increases and dire consequences on mankind has even come close to what has transpired.October 19, 2019 at 1:57 pm #158399WolfParticipant
“And let’s not forget the continuous poisoning of our oceans from the still uncontrolled release of radiation from Fukushima.”
Yup. And now the latest Typhoon has washed out to sea countless tonnes of stored waste from Fukyouallshima on top of that… (crickets)
And where is the media to talk about the hundreds of decaying and badly leaking nuclear power stations in the US alone? Greta is right to be angry and concerned… she is just angry and concerned for the wrong issues because of the reasons posted earlier.
“What was Australia’s role in meddling in American politics in behalf of Democrats?” … a very significant one. Remember last year when Trump threatened to release the FISA documents? Aussie PM Malcolm Talkbull (ex-Goldmann-Sachs) was immediately gotten rid of (he was the leader during all this malarky). Our glorious politicians gave $50 million to Clinton on behalf of us here without a murmer from the press… meanwhile our children swelter in summer classrooms, our farmers are kicked off their generations-old properties (which are then sold by the banks to the Chinese), more mental institutions close and patients are forced into the streets… all for lack of funding. One thing about Australia… we have the best politicians money can buy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.