Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[task0778]

Right here ... we have to acknowledge we're impacting the planet ... no way around it and maintain 8 billion 2.5 billion souls ... I believe each one of us individually should do all that we can to minimize this impact ...

Drive less ...
Fly less ...
Eat less meat ...

... or not, just don't complain about inflation ... energy is expensive, so use less ... and if you want meat, buy a gun, a hunting license and get trespass permission to shoot a deer ... farmers from Vancouver A.C. to Miami, Florida will thank you ...

You're connected to the internet so I already know you're having fewer children ...

Noticed you lined out the 8 billion in favor of 2.5 billion living human beings on the planet. As of last month, the Earth's total human population is estimated at 8.1 billion, so why did you change it? I do know that birth rates in many places are in decline and even falling below sustainability levels, but it's going to be quite awhile that 8 billion drops that far. Even now it isn't in reverse yet.

As for impacting the planet, I wouldn't argue that. But are we the primary cause for global warming/climate change, to the point where we need to spend tens of trillions of dollars to do something about it without knowing if all that money will even move the needle? Some say it will, but many of them were also saying Florida would be under water by now and the polar icecap would be long gone. Why is it they can't find cheaper ways to deal with a problem that hasn't even been proved to be a problem, let alone an emergency?

 

[ReinyDays]

Noticed you lined out the 8 billion in favor of 2.5 billion living human beings on the planet. As of last month, the Earth's total human population is estimated at 8.1 billion, so why did you change it? I do know that birth rates in many places are in decline and even falling below sustainability levels, but it's going to be quite awhile that 8 billion drops that far. Even now it isn't in reverse yet.

The burden of 5.6 billion is far less than that of the 2.5 billion living in the industrialized portions of the world ... there's 1.5 billion of us who still cook all their meals with wood fires ... no electric service of any kind ...

So no internet ... no connection to USMB ... so why bother bitching at them where they can't read it? ... if they can read at all ...

I'm pointing my finger and blaming the 2.5 billion of us who is using all this energy ...

As for impacting the planet, I wouldn't argue that. But are we the primary cause for global warming/climate change, to the point where we need to spend tens of trillions of dollars to do something about it without knowing if all that money will even move the needle? Some say it will, but many of them were also saying Florida would be under water by now and the polar icecap would be long gone. Why is it they can't find cheaper ways to deal with a problem that hasn't even been proved to be a problem, let alone an emergency?

There are better reasons to move away from fossil fuels ... the oil economy has been shown to be polluting in the general sense ... and it's been getting more expensive as time moves along ... at some point, alternatives will be cheaper ...

Conservation is good for nature ... does it have to be bad for us? ... I say no ... there's a balance ...

 

[Matted Joybeard]

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.

What famous scientists? What lucrative grants?

 

[expat_panama]

The burden of 5.6 billion is far less than that of the 2.5 billion living in the industrialized portions of the world ... there's 1.5 billion of us who still cook all their meals with wood fires ... no electric service of any kind ...

So no internet ... no connection to USMB ... so why bother bitching at them where they can't read it? ... if they can read at all ...

I'm pointing my finger and blaming the 2.5 billion of us who is using all this energy ...



There are better reasons to move away from fossil fuels ... the oil economy has been shown to be polluting in the general sense ... and it's been getting more expensive as time moves along ... at some point, alternatives will be cheaper ...

Conservation is good for nature ... does it have to be bad for us? ... I say no ... there's a balance ...

This was a big post, but there were a few things you said that were just false to fact.

One big myth is the rising "fossil fuel" story, please understand that adjusted for inflation the cost of gasoline has been level for decades --in fact it cost less than it did 25 years ago. Do we really have more pollution than we did a century ago when most energy came from coal?

There's a strong mental desire to believe that we're doomed & all is lost, but it's not true. Sometimes we got good news: we're better off.

 

[EMH]

But are we the primary cause for global warming

Complete BULLSHIT


The climate data is as follows

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in CANES
NO OCEAN RISE

 

[expat_panama]

Complete BULLSHIT


The climate data is as follows

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in CANES
NO OCEAN RISE

My personal guess is you're right but you might want to understand that proving a negative is a bit dicey. Like, you've got to agree that we've had plenty atmosphere warming, ocean warming, ice melting, and ocean rising since say 20K years ago.

My take is that there very well may be AGW but nobody I've come across has yet supported the idea w/ hard numbers.

 

[EMH]

My personal guess is you're right but you might want to understand that proving a negative is a bit dicey. Like, you've got to agree that we've had plenty atmosphere warming, ocean warming, ice melting, and ocean rising since say 20K years ago.

My take is that there very well may be AGW but nobody I've come across has yet supported the idea w/ hard numbers.

No.

There is something called DATA. For the ATMOSPHERE, we have TWO and only TWO measures of atmospheric temperature data, satellites and balloons, and both showed NO WARMING despite RISING Co2 with high correlation. That stood until the Co2 FRAUD fudged both with laughable BS easily outed as such.

The DATA is real, the FUDGE is not = NO WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE DESPITE RISING Co2

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

If "the ice is melting" then oceans would be rising, but you cannot show us one single photo of anything sinking, because "the ice is NOT melting" since 90% is on continent specific ice age ANTARCTICA...

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

www.nasa.gov

Certified in COURT

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

SO 90% of EARTH ICE IS INCREASING.... hmmmm....

 

[Crick]

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.

Does he explain WHY he does not believe it?

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.

Does he explain WHY he does not believe it?

Most recently, American climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology says this so-called scientific consensus is “manufactured.”

Does she say WHY she believes it to be "manufactured"

Curry argues this false slogan about an “overwhelming consensus” has been fueled by scientists who pursue “fame and fortune.”

An interesting argument considering she's one of the most famous of them all.

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.

The polls and surveys of scientists and of their publications are not based on who is most often quoted in popular culture and Curry is, herself, often quoted in popular media.

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

It IS believed by the vast majority of climate scientists which leaves us to wonder what you might actually mean by "scientists like Curry".

America Insider is under construction

The Pulse of America

www.americainsider.org

Do you really think "American Insider" is a good source for science news?

Comment:
The Left uses Climate Change fear to control dumb people.

The better educated wrt to climate science an individual might be, the more likely that they will accept the IPCC's conclusions. Thus, your statement is demonstrably flawed.

There is no scientific consensus.

Obviously, there is.

There is no climate crisis.

Obviously, there is.

 

[ReinyDays]

This was a big post, but there were a few things you said that were just false to fact.

One big myth is the rising "fossil fuel" story, please understand that adjusted for inflation the cost of gasoline has been level for decades --in fact it cost less than it did 25 years ago. Do we really have more pollution than we did a century ago when most energy came from coal?

There's a strong mental desire to believe that we're doomed & all is lost, but it's not true. Sometimes we got good news: we're better off.

Horsefeathers ... I have a distinct memory of 19¢ a gallon gasoline at the pump a couple years before the OPEC Oil Embargo, and that including 11¢ per gallon California road taxes ... today it's running $4.80 ... a twenty-four-fold increase ... general inflation was only seven-fold over the same period {Cite} ...

There was NO radioactive pollution before July 19th, 1945 ... it was the amount of soot from all that dirty coal, without any filters ... but is that worse than the City of Portland, Oregon, and all the plutonium in their drinking water? ... same with Nashville, Tennessee ... I'll need a citation before I believe 1.5 billion people 100 years ago produced more pollution than the 8.1 billion do today ... only Rich nations burned coal a hundred years ago ... close to 15% of us still don't burn coal ...

Global warming is good for plants ... and that's good for humans ... so torch that coal, suckers, I dare you ...

 

[Crick]

Horsefeathers ... I have a distinct memory of 19¢ a gallon gasoline at the pump a couple years before the OPEC Oil Embargo, and that including 11¢ per gallon California road taxes ... today it's running $4.80 ... a twenty-four-fold increase ... general inflation was only seven-fold over the same period {Cite} ...

There was NO radioactive pollution before July 19th, 1945 ... it was the amount of soot from all that dirty coal, without any filters ... but is that worse than the City of Portland, Oregon, and all the plutonium in their drinking water? ... same with Nashville, Tennessee ... I'll need a citation before I believe 1.5 billion people 100 years ago produced more pollution than the 8.1 billion do today ... only Rich nations burned coal a hundred years ago ... close to 15% of us still don't burn coal ...

Global warming is good for plants ... and that's good for humans ... so torch that coal, suckers, I dare you ...

This is why memory and personal anecdotes shouldn't be used as evidence for anything. When the first oil embargo took place the average price of gasoline in the US was about 35 cents/gallon. While individual stations might have been selling gasoline at a loss (I can personally remember seeing 11 cents/gallon in 1960) you'd have to go to the 1930s to see that as an average US price.

Gas Price History

What is the highest gas price ever? Keep reading to learn how the cost has changed over the last 100 years.

www.creditdonkey.com

 

[expat_panama]

No.

There is something called DATA...

There's a lot of data for the past 20K years, most paleoclimatology sites (example) will show what I mentioned. What u described is far more recent.

Also like I said, trying to prove a negative is (imho) a waste of time. I just sit back want wait them out.

 

[expat_panama]

Horsefeathers ... I have a distinct memory of 19¢ a gallon gasoline at the pump a couple years before the OPEC Oil Embargo...

Ah, so the deal is inflation and changing dollar value doesn't matter.

Looks like we're done.

 

[Stryder50]

Over 1,600 Scientists and Professionals Sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ Declaration​

....
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.

“There is no climate emergency,” the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August. “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.

The coalition pointed out that Earth’s climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.

"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said.

Warming is happening “far slower” than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
...
“Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools,” the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.” For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is “not a pollutant.”

Carbon dioxide is “essential” to all life on earth and is “favorable” for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.

CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is “no statistical evidence” to support these claims.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are,” it said.
...

Over 1,600 Scientists and Professionals Sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ Declaration

Over 1,600 scientists have signed a joint declaration claiming that there is no need for climate alarmism.

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[ReinyDays]

Ah, so the deal is inflation and changing dollar value doesn't matter.

Looks like we're done.

So .. my link to the inflation calculator means inflation doesn't matter to me? ... right ...

You're wrong, and that's why we're done ... gasoline to twice as expensive today even when we adjust for inflation ... math is hard, especially for liberals ...

 

[expat_panama]

So .. my link to the inflation calculator means inflation doesn't matter to me? ... right ...

You're wrong, and that's why we're done ... gasoline to twice as expensive today even when we adjust for inflation ... math is hard, especially for liberals ...

lol!!! That's the first time I can remember when I've been called a math-challenged liberal --seriously I looked at your link going back to 1970, you might be interested in the BLS numbers going back to WWI.

Here's the price of gasoline adjusted for the CPI back to 1929 (gas from here, cpi from here):

So the average price of gasoline was $0.17/gallon in 1930, and in 2023 dollars that's almost $4.

 

[ding]

Consensus is a political narrative.

 

[expat_panama]

Consensus is a political narrative.

It looked like part of the quote is missing but the idea I got from what was there may be true. People love to be doomed. Folks flock to see maltopia movies. Everyone wants to be in a miserable crisis.

Perhaps it comes from the lazy desire to be unhappy, certainly that may be why so many want to quarrel. For many of us being happy takes work, an effort that lots of folks are simply not willing to expend.

 

[EMH]

There's a lot of data for the past 20K years

Indeed, there is. During that past 20k years, Greenland's ice age engulfed the southern tip where the Vikings were farming, and the North American Ice Age still had glaciers in Indiana 20k years ago.

THE DATA from the past 20k years


GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED


rules out atmosphere (and hence Co2) as possible cause.

destroys milankovich aka McBullshit "glacials and interglacials" as completely wrong.

 

[expat_panama]

Indeed, there is. During that past 20k years, Greenland's ice age engulfed the southern tip where the Vikings were farming, and the North American Ice Age still had glaciers in Indiana 20k years ago.

THE DATA from the past 20k years


GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED


rules out atmosphere (and hence Co2) as possible cause.

destroys milankovich aka McBullshit "glacials and interglacials" as completely wrong.

Maybe I could say that AGW very well may be true but so far the case supporting it is so extremely shabby that I'm ready to file it w/ paranormal claims.

 

[EMH]

Maybe I could say that AGW very well may be true but so far the case supporting it is so extremely shabby that I'm ready to file it w/ paranormal claims.

Reading the OPs of each of these is a must if you really want to understand Earth climate change, which is real, and Co2 has absolutely nothing to do with it...

Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice. What are the parameters of climate that can change? Ocean levels Atmospheric...

www.usmessageboard.com

Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...

What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...

www.usmessageboard.com

The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure... We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old...

www.usmessageboard.com

How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?

This is where the climate debate is now stuck. Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today. Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very...

www.usmessageboard.com