Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[Dagosa]

so we got just over 400 ppm CO2 and we're over 1C hotter than the late 1800's. That would mean we had around 200 ppm CO2 and that would have stunted all plant life.

Didn't happen.

Wrong bubba. You just made up shit….People aren’t plants. So you’ve never been to a green house ? Amazing. You’ve live a sheltered life.

 

[Libby von H]

It is often said that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” that human activity is causing global warming, which is regularly supported by fact-check articles.

However, this slogan has been challenged by a number of prominent scientists over the years. Esteemed physicist and 2022 Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser recently stated he does not believe there is a man-made global warming crisis. Scientist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman also championed his belief that “there is no significant man-made global warming” before his death in 2018.

Most recently, American climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology says this so-called scientific consensus is “manufactured.” Published in over a hundred scientific papers, Curry’s decades-long research includes hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

Curry argues this false slogan about an “overwhelming consensus” has been fueled by scientists who pursue “fame and fortune.” Scientists who study man-made global warming are more likely to be quoted in popular culture while receiving celebrity-like status and lucrative grants from the federal government.

This has created “climate hysteria” among the general public, it but isn’t believed by scientists like Curry.

America Insider is under construction

The Pulse of America

www.americainsider.org

Comment:
The Left uses Climate Change fear to control dumb people.
There is no scientific consensus.
There is no climate crisis.

The LID was still headed to Deep Space from BIden's UTTERLY FOOLISH quotes about infection models going back to his stupid as hell H1N! performance through his speech in which he constantly faked seriousnees while talking about the OMNIcron virus

South African doctor who discovered Omicron variant SLAMS pressure from countries to make the virus sound worse than it actually is​

• Dr Angelique Coetzee was one of the first scientists to discover Omicron strain
• She said she's been attacked from scientists and politicians around the world
• Dr Coetzee said she was told not to describe the Covid variant as 'mild'

BIDEN
[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?

BIDEN AGAIN

 

[Dagosa]

The LID was still headed to Deep Space from BIden's UTTERLY FOOLISH quotes about infection models going back to his stupid as hell H1N! performance through his speech in which he constantly faked seriousnees while talking about the OMNIcron virus

South African doctor who discovered Omicron variant SLAMS pressure from countries to make the virus sound worse than it actually is​

• Dr Angelique Coetzee was one of the first scientists to discover Omicron strain
• She said she's been attacked from scientists and politicians around the world
• Dr Coetzee said she was told not to describe the Covid variant as 'mild'

BIDEN
[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?

BIDEN AGAIN

And covid will be gone in spring, three years ago.
TRUMP.

 

[Libby von H]

Wrong bubba. You just made up shit….People aren’t plants. So you’ve never been to a green house ? Amazing. You’ve live a sheltered life.

and you are more wrong.
Your plant comparison is irrelevant. Green houses do not do what you are analogizing to

Nobel Prize winner John F Clauser has the most experience with the feedback mechanism that involves changing cloud cover.
You are just wrong, if you care to know.

 

[Libby von H]

And covid will be gone in spring, three years ago.
TRUMP.

So if your enemy is wrong , you are right. How silly.

 

[Dagosa]

and you are more wrong.
Your plant comparison is irrelevant. Green houses do not do what you are analogizing to

Nobel Prize winner John F Clauser has the most experience with the feedback mechanism that involves changing cloud cover.
You are just wrong, if you care to know.

Maybe, you should read the post again, that I was responding to.

 

[expat_panama]

Wrong bubba. You just made up shit….People aren’t plants. So you’ve never been to a green house ? Amazing. You’ve live a sheltered life.

ah, when I said that all the world's plant life wasn't stunted before the 1880's I became the band guy. No problem, we have resolved the issue.

 

[Libby von H]

Maybe, you should read the post again, that I was responding to.

I don't waste my time, the key to my success

 

[ding]

That's a common understanding that many share, tho for my taste we'd have to be able to quantify everything a bit more. I can show a number of other popular definitions that differ but maybe as time goes on we see one concept emerging.

The immediate physical response is 1C increase in atmospheric temperature for every doubling of CO2 concentration. It's actually pretty weak.

 

[ding]

so we got just over 400 ppm CO2 and we're over 1C hotter than the late 1800's. That would mean we had around 200 ppm CO2 and that would have stunted all plant life.

Didn't happen.

Not quite. CO2 should have added ~0.5C of warming due to the addition of 120 ppm (300 ppm to 420 ppm). The rest is due to natural climate variation of an interglacial period. It's ridiculous to assume all warming is from CO2.

 

[ding]

ah, when I said that all the world's plant life wasn't stunted before the 1880's I became the band guy. No problem, we have resolved the issue.

I don't believe a CO2 concentration of 200 ppm would be low enough to kill off or stunt plant life on earth as the earth has experienced sustained periods at that concentration in the past.

I believe it would have to be approaching 100 ppm to kill off plant life and 150 ppm to start stunting plant growth as 150 ppm is the threshold where issues would begin to occur. At least that is my understanding from when I looked it up awhile back ago.

 

[expat_panama]

The immediate physical response is 1C increase in atmospheric temperature for every doubling of CO2 concentration. It's actually pretty weak.

Yeah, that was my take too.

 

[expat_panama]

Not quite. CO2 should have added ~0.5C of warming due to the addition of 120 ppm (300 ppm to 420 ppm). The rest is due to natural climate variation of an interglacial period. It's ridiculous to assume all warming is from CO2.

That's reasonable, and at the same time as long as we're basing our assertions on conjecture we could also say that "natural climate variation" would have raised ambient temperatures 15C and thanks to the cooling effect of CO2 we were only subjected to a 1.5C increase.

My point is that since we don't know what all the factors are, any guessing on our part ends up being a bit silly.

 

[expat_panama]

I don't believe a CO2 concentration of 200 ppm would be low enough to kill off or stunt plant life on earth as the earth has experienced sustained periods at that concentration in the past...

--and the earth has had to put up w/ stunted plant growth in the past.

The only justification I got for the "stunted at 200" bit is a quick google search. Sure, it can be wrong, but our problem is that we don't know. Not knowing means we can't say what the consequences are w/ any confidence.

I'm not afraid to say "I don't know". There are lots of things I don't know. The problem is all the folks we got convinced that they know and who are willing to vilify anyone who questions their knowledge.

 

[ding]

That's reasonable, and at the same time as long as we're basing our assertions on conjecture we could also say that "natural climate variation" would have raised ambient temperatures 15C and thanks to the cooling effect of CO2 we were only subjected to a 1.5C increase.

My point is that since we don't know what all the factors are, any guessing on our part ends up being a bit silly.

But we do know the planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures. The polar regions are thermally isolated from warm marine currents. We do know the northern hemisphere is what drives the climate fluctuations and is greatly influenced by heat transport of the ocean.

As for your conjecture that "natural climate variation" would have raised ambient temperatures 15C, that's not what the data shows. The data shows that the trigger for glacial cycles seems to be temperature dependent and is 2C warmer than the present temperature. Which suggests changes to ocean circulation (i.e. salinity and/or density) is what triggers glacial periods. So it's not likely that the planet will warm beyond another 2C before the AMOC collapses.

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

And lastly, the planet has been cooling for 50 million years and had much higher CO2 levels than today during that time. So the GHG effect of CO2 must be weak.

 

[ding]

--and the earth has had to put up w/ stunted plant growth in the past.

The only justification I got for the "stunted at 200" bit is a quick google search. Sure, it can be wrong, but our problem is that we don't know. Not knowing means we can't say what the consequences are w/ any confidence.

I'm not afraid to say "I don't know". There are lots of things I don't know. The problem is all the folks we got convinced that they know and who are willing to vilify anyone who questions their knowledge.

Oh, I think we can say that the during past glacial periods the planet has gotten perilously close to the minimum CO2 threshold to sustain photosynthesis.

At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped. At this low level the plant will no longer be able to obtain CO2 from the atmosphere and photosynthesis is restricted.

 

[Dagosa]

I don't waste my time, the key to my success

Success ? This is the highlight of your life ?

 

[Dagosa]

ah, when I said that all the world's plant life wasn't stunted before the 1880's I became the band guy. No problem, we have resolved the issue.

Have. I no idea what the point is. Excessive CO2 is a pollutant for our species, and just because it isn’t for plant life is immaterial. Some bacteria do well on arsenic.

 

[ding]

Excessive CO2 is a pollutant for our species

How so? Don't we exhale CO2?

 

[expat_panama]

Oh, I think we can say that the during past glacial periods the planet has gotten perilously close to the minimum CO2 threshold to sustain photosynthesis.

At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped. At this low level the plant will no longer be able to obtain CO2 from the atmosphere and photosynthesis is restricted.

View attachment 859545asfsd

Your source says that we've had CO2 below 100 ppm for many tens of thousands of years, and Standford University says that plants can't survive below a minimum of 150 ppm:

How about we agree that the issue is controversial and that there are many very knowledgeable people who disagree w/ each other on this topic.