Global Warming Liars

[bodecea]

http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com

THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.

This lie is based on a 2009 article by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, then a student at the University of Illinois.
As stated in the Wall Street Journal, "The '97 percent' figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
The WSJ went on to elaborate further: "The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change."
So much for that lie one hears so often and so loudly.
THE LIE: Humans are causing catastrophic changes in earth's climate by burning fossil fuel and increasing carbon dioxide.
This lie is based on the extremely disingenuous and anti-scientific Keeling Curve, below.

This terribly misleading graph is intended to scare you into immediate action.
Just adding water vapor, which constitutes 1.5% of the atmosphere, or 15,000 parts per million, that graph above becomes this below, far more realistic, more honest, less misleading:


Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are omitted from graphs and discussion.
If in fact humans were the primary, or even major contributor to carbon dioxide production, then the highest concentrations of CO2 would be industrial and population centers around the globe, instead of the rain forests of Africa and South America:

THE LIE: Global catastrophe, "tipping point"! We must do something now!
This incredible lie is preached by Al Gore, the United Nations, bureaucracies beholden to research billions, and by Barack Obama. Obama recently flew on Air Force One from Washington, D.C. to California, to play a round of golf with his friends, the same way he uses Air Force One to fly to Democrat fund-raisers all over the U.S.
Preaching doom and gloom to you little people is what they do, but not what they practice themselves. At the most recent Global Warming Scare-Fest, in Davos, Switzerland, the Scare-Mongers flew 1,700 private jets, rather than videoconference. Don't do as they do, do as they say.
Net global emission of CO2 looks nothing like human production of CO2. Rather, CO2 is the product of temperature and soil moisture.


THE LIE: Big oil billions are driving "deniers"
Budget requests from a few of the U.S. government agencies for global warming "research" money, just in 2011:

NOAA $437 million
NSF $480 million
NASA $438 million
DOE $627 million
DOI $171 million
EPA $169 million
USDA $159 million

ON OCTOBER 6, 2010, UC SANTA BARBARA PHYSICS PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HAROLD LEWIS, RESIGNED FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY IN PROTEST OF THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD. HIS LETTER READS IN PART:“FOR REASONS THAT WILL SOON BECOME CLEAR MY FORMER PRIDE AT BEING AN APS FELLOW ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN TURNED INTO SHAME, AND I AM FORCED, WITH NO PLEASURE AT ALL, TO OFFER YOU MY RESIGNATION FROM THE SOCIETY. “IT IS OF COURSE, THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, WITH THE (LITERALLY) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DRIVING IT, THAT HAS CORRUPTED SO MANY SCIENTISTS, AND HAS CARRIED APS BEFORE IT LIKE A ROGUE WAVE. IT IS THE GREATEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC FRAUD I HAVE SEEN IN MY LONG LIFE AS A PHYSICIST. ANYONE WHO HAS THE FAINTEST DOUBT THAT THIS IS SO SHOULD FORCE HIMSELF TO READ THE CLIMATEGATE DOCUMENTS, WHICH LAY IT BARE. (MONTFORD’S BOOK ORGANIZES THE FACTS VERY WELL.) I DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANY REAL PHYSICIST, NAY SCIENTIST, CAN READ THAT STUFF WITHOUT REVULSION. I WOULD ALMOST MAKE THAT REVULSION A DEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENTIST. “SO WHAT HAS THE APS, AS AN ORGANIZATION, DONE IN THE FACE OF THIS CHALLENGE? IT HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRUPTION AS THE NORM, AND GONE ALONG WITH IT." - END OF QUOTE BY PROFESSOR LEWIS ​

​

NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS, IVER GIAIVER LIKEWISE RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 OVER THIS ONGOING SCANDAL PARADING AS "SCIENCE". IT IS ANYTHING BUT.​

THE LIE: Why would scientists lie! For money, and for cowardice. They don't want to be blackballed by other cowards.

Too late now anyways.

 

[jc456]

Too late now anyways.

For what?

 

[jc456]

You missed something. I very effectively refuted all your contentions and THEN subtly suggested you're irrationality is caused by a mental illness.

Naw. Why aren’t we just putting solar panels in for free? Why should someone make money on disaster?

Like big pharma

 

[bodecea]

Indeed.

Let me ask you this, if it was so dire, why not give away all the solar panels and hook ups for everyone! Free,, because it’s dire emergency! I still laugh at your stupid

When was anything given for free? Oil? Gas? Propane? Coal?

 

[jc456]

When was anything given for free? Oil? Gas? Propane? Coal?

Why would it? It wasn’t dire emergency. Shit, you wrote it’s too late!

But not too late to give it all away right?

Hahaha I called your scam and you just bit

 

[jc456]

The proof it’s all a scam is the fact they’re not giving solar panels out for free

 

[ReinyDays]

The Inflation Reduction Act allows for tax breaks for solar installations ... and we'll just "print" more money to cover the budget shortfall ... causing more inflation ... see how The Swamp operates ...

 

[jc456]

The Inflation Reduction Act allows for tax breaks for solar installations ... and we'll just "print" more money to cover the budget shortfall ... causing more inflation ... see how The Swamp operates ...

Swamp

 

[Crick]

The Inflation Reduction Act allows for tax breaks for solar installations ... and we'll just "print" more money to cover the budget shortfall ... causing more inflation ... see how The Swamp operates ...

Is that how they took care of the shortfall from the Trump tax cut? I wager subsidized solar installations for low income folks would do them a great deal more good than Trump's tax cut for the wealthy.

 

[jc456]

Is that how they took care of the shortfall from the Trump tax cut? I wager subsidized solar installations for low income folks would do them a great deal more good than Trump's tax cut for the wealthy.

Which tax cut was for the wealthy?

 

[Crick]

http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com

THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.

This lie is based on a 2009 article by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, then a student at the University of Illinois.
As stated in the Wall Street Journal, "The '97 percent' figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
The WSJ went on to elaborate further: "The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change."
So much for that lie one hears so often and so loudly.
THE LIE: Humans are causing catastrophic changes in earth's climate by burning fossil fuel and increasing carbon dioxide.
This lie is based on the extremely disingenuous and anti-scientific Keeling Curve, below.

This terribly misleading graph is intended to scare you into immediate action.
Just adding water vapor, which constitutes 1.5% of the atmosphere, or 15,000 parts per million, that graph above becomes this below, far more realistic, more honest, less misleading:


Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are omitted from graphs and discussion.
If in fact humans were the primary, or even major contributor to carbon dioxide production, then the highest concentrations of CO2 would be industrial and population centers around the globe, instead of the rain forests of Africa and South America:

THE LIE: Global catastrophe, "tipping point"! We must do something now!
This incredible lie is preached by Al Gore, the United Nations, bureaucracies beholden to research billions, and by Barack Obama. Obama recently flew on Air Force One from Washington, D.C. to California, to play a round of golf with his friends, the same way he uses Air Force One to fly to Democrat fund-raisers all over the U.S.
Preaching doom and gloom to you little people is what they do, but not what they practice themselves. At the most recent Global Warming Scare-Fest, in Davos, Switzerland, the Scare-Mongers flew 1,700 private jets, rather than videoconference. Don't do as they do, do as they say.
Net global emission of CO2 looks nothing like human production of CO2. Rather, CO2 is the product of temperature and soil moisture.


THE LIE: Big oil billions are driving "deniers"
Budget requests from a few of the U.S. government agencies for global warming "research" money, just in 2011:

NOAA $437 million
NSF $480 million
NASA $438 million
DOE $627 million
DOI $171 million
EPA $169 million
USDA $159 million

ON OCTOBER 6, 2010, UC SANTA BARBARA PHYSICS PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HAROLD LEWIS, RESIGNED FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY IN PROTEST OF THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD. HIS LETTER READS IN PART:“FOR REASONS THAT WILL SOON BECOME CLEAR MY FORMER PRIDE AT BEING AN APS FELLOW ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN TURNED INTO SHAME, AND I AM FORCED, WITH NO PLEASURE AT ALL, TO OFFER YOU MY RESIGNATION FROM THE SOCIETY. “IT IS OF COURSE, THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, WITH THE (LITERALLY) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DRIVING IT, THAT HAS CORRUPTED SO MANY SCIENTISTS, AND HAS CARRIED APS BEFORE IT LIKE A ROGUE WAVE. IT IS THE GREATEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC FRAUD I HAVE SEEN IN MY LONG LIFE AS A PHYSICIST. ANYONE WHO HAS THE FAINTEST DOUBT THAT THIS IS SO SHOULD FORCE HIMSELF TO READ THE CLIMATEGATE DOCUMENTS, WHICH LAY IT BARE. (MONTFORD’S BOOK ORGANIZES THE FACTS VERY WELL.) I DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANY REAL PHYSICIST, NAY SCIENTIST, CAN READ THAT STUFF WITHOUT REVULSION. I WOULD ALMOST MAKE THAT REVULSION A DEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENTIST. “SO WHAT HAS THE APS, AS AN ORGANIZATION, DONE IN THE FACE OF THIS CHALLENGE? IT HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRUPTION AS THE NORM, AND GONE ALONG WITH IT." - END OF QUOTE BY PROFESSOR LEWIS ​

​

NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS, IVER GIAIVER LIKEWISE RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 OVER THIS ONGOING SCANDAL PARADING AS "SCIENCE". IT IS ANYTHING BUT.​

THE LIE: Why would scientists lie! For money, and for cowardice. They don't want to be blackballed by other cowards.

From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

...

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]
******************************************************

There is a very strong consensus among scientists supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Denial of this fact is simply unsupportable.

 

[jc456]

54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.

I want the figures used to achieve this percentage. How many out of how many?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GIGO

 

[Crick]

GIGO

So... you believe the conclusions of those thousands of scientists are all garbage? And you come to that conclusion based on what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So... you believe the conclusions of those thousands of scientists are all garbage? And you come to that conclusion based on what?

I believe the polls are garbage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Garbage, but funny.

 

[Crick]

I believe the polls are garbage.

Based on what? Do you have peer reviewed studies showing different results?

 

[Crick]

Garbage, but funny.

Do you think this is garbage?
Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]
****************************************************
Where is your review of thousands of published papers showing there's no consensus Todd? If you can't back these statements up - as we all know you cannot - retract them and stop making them. This is no different than simply lying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Based on what? Do you have peer reviewed studies showing different results?

Based on what you posted

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think this is garbage?
Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]
****************************************************
Where is your review of thousands of published papers showing there's no consensus Todd? If you can't back these statements up - as we all know you cannot - retract them and stop making them. This is no different than simply lying.

Yes, based on what you posted, that's garbage.