Global Warming Liars

[ReinyDays]

... rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims ...

We've talked about this before ... the IPCC isn't a scientific body ... it may contain science, in an edited form ... but they are a political organization ... and their reports, including AR5 and AR6, are specifically addressed to political policy makers ... not scientists ... you can tell because they don't allow the dissenting scientific opinions ... like from Chris Landsea, one of the world's foremost authorities on hurricane intensive and frequency ... he makes a great case that the IPCC is overstating their cause ...

We make effective arguments using basic physics ... but that's over your head academically ... because you always rely on "104% consensus" without even trying to understand the science ...

Why do you believe in hypercanes? ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Both sides are pushing their narratives.

It's quite scary really because most people are willing to accept one side of the narrative without doing their own research. They become believers. They accept all they are told.

 

[ReinyDays]

Both sides are pushing their narratives.

It's quite scary really because most people are willing to accept one side of the narrative without doing their own research. They become believers. They accept all they are told.

... and the truth lies somewhere in between ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

... and the truth lies somewhere in between ...

But no one is interested. It's too boring.

 

[ReinyDays]

But no one is interested. It's too boring.

Gee thanx ... good to know you think I'm boring ... meh ... I work outdoors so I'm up front and personal with the weather ... and I like math ...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gee thanx ... good to know you think I'm boring ... meh ... I work outdoors so I'm up front and personal with the weather ... and I like math ...

Huh? Okay, what I said was rather vague, but I was saying that no one is interested in what is in the middle, because it's boring. They want to be entertained.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Green light comes from the Sun ... there no other natural source in the solar system ... any change in sunlight at these wavelengths will be immediately "reflected" by the color of the grass ...

Proof positive the sun isn't changing ... didn't they have UVB photometers in your astrophysics class? ...

A 1% change is not sufficient to create this change. It is however, enough change to slow the waters absorption of energy at depth. Which is why our oceans are cooling. Did they not teach you wave propagation though water in your physics class?

 

[Crick]

If it's hot, "climate change."
If it's cold, "climate change."
Too much rain, "climate change."
Rampant stupidity, "climate change."

Seasonal temperatures change all around the world 25 to 50 degrees Celsius. Climate change zealots go crazy over a promised change of 2 degrees. W.T.F.

You claim to be an engineer yet you would ask a question as stupid as this?

 

[Crick]

You were saying Einstein?
Educate yourself before you spout nonsense to people who know better.

AGW is tailor made to separate fools from their money & freedom.
Good luck with that


The facts from this news article appear to come from an article in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics. The article, titled The Remarkable Weather of 1911, commented on the strange meteorological swings of the past year and pointed the finger at coal consumption and carbon emissions. The greenhouse effect was already a theory in use, having been developed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

Shocking 106-Year-Old Newspaper Article Predicts Global Warming

Articles from 1912 show how savvy scientists were to the greenhouse effect over 100 years ago and the human impact on the environment.

mymodernmet.com

Popular mechanics? I bet you can find writings in ancient Greek worrying about sooty smoke absorbing sunlight. And where is the evidence that it has ever been a scam?

 

[ReinyDays]

A 1% change is not sufficient to create this change. It is however, enough change to slow the waters absorption of energy at depth. Which is why our oceans are cooling. Did they not teach you wave propagation though water in your physics class?

Give me a link to the UVB data ... geez ... this is easy to show ... why the gymnastics? ...

Why do you think the oceans are cooling? ... that's such an odd statement based on so little data ... when did we begin systematically measuring ocean temperatures at depth? ... or are you basing your claims on computer simulations? ...

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Popular mechanics? I bet you can find writings in ancient Greek worrying about sooty smoke absorbing sunlight. And where is the evidence that it has ever been a scam?

The fact you feel you can talk intelligently on this subject but didn't even know this grift has been going on since the 1880's is the best part!!
Priceless!!
Thanks for the laugh chick

 

[dudmuck]

If it's hot, "climate change."
If it's cold, "climate change."
Too much rain, "climate change."
Rampant stupidity, "climate change."

Seasonal temperatures change all around the world 25 to 50 degrees Celsius. Climate change zealots go crazy over a promised change of 2 degrees. W.T.F.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/death-toll-from-brutal-heat-wave-tops-1000-in-spain-and-portugal/1218084

the pro-lifers keep the killing going.

 

[Billy_Bob]

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/death-toll-from-brutal-heat-wave-tops-1000-in-spain-and-portugal/1218084

the pro-lifers keep the killing going.

Moron.

The polar jets are so large they are buckling. This allows major high pressures and low pressures to form; they move very slowly due to the nature of the polar jet. This allows temperatures to increase and temperatures to decrease across areas of the globe.

This is a natural process of our climatic systems during cooling. More evidence that most people have no clue about the earths systems and how they present paradoxically during the swing phase of cooling or warming.

 

[mamooth]

I do not know the answer, but what caused this ice age to occur and what caused this dramatic warm up or change in global climate?

Orbital factors kick it off, then it gets reinforced by changing CO2 levels.

It's not possible to explain paleoclimate without including the effects of CO2 as a greehouse gas.

 

[mamooth]

... and the truth lies somewhere in between ...

Some say the earth is an ellipsoid, some say it's flat, so the truth must be that it's partially flat and partially round.

And thus I illustrate the fallacy of "the truth lies somewhere in between".

 

[mamooth]

The polar jets are so large they are buckling.

Meanwhile, back in reality, the way the polar jets are getting _weaker_ is what makes them buckle more. Think of a river. Slow rivers meander more. A slower jetstream meanders more.

And what's making them weaker? Global warming. The jet stream is driven by the temperature difference between polar and sub-polar. The poles are warming more, so that difference is getting less, so the polar jet is getting weaker.

 

[mamooth]

The fact you feel you can talk intelligently on this subject but didn't even know this grift has been going on since the 1880's is the best part!!

This from the kook who missed where his 1912 article said "The effect may be considerable in a few centuries."

That is, the article was correct. And he calls it a grift. That's normal. Conservatives tend to reject anything that accurately describes reality.

Go on, kook. Humiliate yourself some more. Tell us more about the "grift". What else did TheParty tell you to parrot?

 

[mamooth]

2) Yet another lies since it is well known that a warming ocean releases more CO2 and CO2 from so called fossil fuels are the same as the CO2 produced by nature.

Check it out. This one actually denies that the oceans are absorbing CO2.

This is why they call them deniers, because they just deny observed reality. They don't care if it makes them look insane. TheParty ordered them to do it, so they obey.

 

[ReinyDays]

Some say the earth is an ellipsoid, some say it's flat, so the truth must be that it's partially flat and partially round.

And thus I illustrate the fallacy of "the truth lies somewhere in between".

Then why do you believe in hypercanes? ...

 

[johngaltshrugged]

This from the kook who missed where his 1912 article said "The effect may be considerable in a few centuries."

That is, the article was correct. And he calls it a grift. That's normal. Conservatives tend to reject anything that accurately describes reality.

Go on, kook. Humiliate yourself some more. Tell us more about the "grift". What else did TheParty tell you to parrot?

What's the matter mammoth, are you afraid that cloud is going to wipe out your herd?
They could literally tell you anything & you'd believe it.
That's hilarious & sad