Global Warming Liars

[mamooth]

Half a doubling has caused 1.0C of warming.

That puts observed TCS (transient climate sensitivity) around 2.0C/doubling.

ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) has to be bigger than TCS.

Thus, anyone claiming ECS < 2.0C/doubling is a hopelessly deluded cult crank, a person to be laughed at and then ignored, being that they're flat-out denying observed reality.

That's why we correctly call them "deniers". All they can do is rave about their delusions in SafeSpaces on political message boards.

 

[ding]

Half a doubling has caused 1.0C of warming.

That puts observed TCS (transient climate sensitivity) around 2.0C/doubling.

ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) has to be bigger than TCS.

Thus, anyone claiming ECS < 2.0C/doubling is a hopelessly deluded cult crank, a person to be laughed at and then ignored, being that they're flat-out denying observed reality.

That's why we correctly call them "deniers". All they can do is rave about their delusions in SafeSpaces on political message boards.

Climate sensitivity is a hoax. But not to worry.... time will prove it a hoax.

 

[ReinyDays]

The model fails empirical verification every time.. So, their understanding of the process fails.

Empirical values are given almost every time, somewhere in the distribution curve ... if we look at the "most likely" results of this distribution curve, we find predictions still within "common sense" ... and, in fact, the IPCC prediction of 2ºC increase in 100 years can be demonstrated by the 1ºC increase these past 50 years ... noting it takes this long for our instruments to be able to record such a small difference ...

The lies come from the extreme edges of these curves ... and greedy software engineers amping up some of the parimeters ... and presto, oceans boiling away by mid-century ... just remember there's an equal probability of the exact opposite ... a well-behaved and orderly atmosphere giving us rain in just the right measure and in the right places ... ha ha ...

And always remember ... an "unprececidented event" is statistically impossible ... zero divided by any non-zero number is zero ... ha ha ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

So the guy who said the sun was cooling fast and we're all DOOMED because of it, based largely on the sunspot cycle, now says the sunspot cycle doesn't matter.

I think everyone expected that. End-times cultists have to have their end-times catastrophe.

You have no understanding of the cause/effect relationship. Go back to scratching your cat nip...

 

[Flash]

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.

Excellent post!

Climate change is real, man made global warming is bullshit.

 

[Flash]

1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey. They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.

2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned, BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.

3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries. Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.

You are confused.

Almost all the "data" on AGW is extracted from fraudulent and cherry picked sources.

At the end of the day all they really have is one silly half ass correlation and a whole bunch of shit in shit out computer simulations that are based upon fraudulent and cherry picked data.

We even have the principle scientists blatantly admitting using fraudulent and cherry picked data and you stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats refuse to accept that it is a scam.

If AGW was real then there would be no reason to fake data, which they have been caught doing numerous times. In addition every once in awhile maybe some of their predictions would come true, which we never see.

It is a scam and only idiots fall for it.

They welcome you to Idiotland Moon Bat. They have reserved a cabin for you.

 

[mamooth]

Almost all the "data" on AGW is extracted from fraudulent and cherry picked sources.

I understand that your cult told you to believe that, and that you instantly believe whatever your cult tells you to believe, no matter how stupid and reality-defying it is.

You need to understand that your masters can only gaslight fascist cult imbeciles like you. Normal people, OTOH, all know you're just babbling some weird cult religious beliefs.

Think of it this way. If you told us the earth is flat, everyone would classify you as a cult imbecile, regardless of how intense your religious beliefs about it were.

It's the same with climate science. The intensity of your religious beliefs about the matter have no bearing on the issue. You're still a kook, babbling some kook conspiracy theories that your masters told you to repeat.

 

[Flash]

I understand that your cult told you to believe that, and that you instantly believe whatever your cult tells you to believe, no matter how stupid and reality-defying it is.

You need to understand that your masters can only gaslight fascist cult imbeciles like you. Normal people, OTOH, all know you're just babbling some weird cult religious beliefs.

Think of it this way. If you told us the earth is flat, everyone would classify you as a cult imbecile, regardless of how intense your religious beliefs about it were.

It's the same with climate science. The intensity of your religious beliefs about the matter have no bearing on the issue. You're still a kook, babbling some kook conspiracy theories that your masters told you to repeat.

All you have to do Moon Bat, is to read the Climategate emails to understand that it is a blatant scam. The scientists blatantly admitted they used fraudulent and cherry picked data. We have found government agencies like NASA and NOAA, along with the UN Climate Commission, admitting to using false data.

Your refusal to accept reality speaks volumes for the typical Moon Bats stupidity that see from you morons all the time.

You don't know anymore about Climate Science than you know about Economics, History, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

 

[mamooth]

All you have to do Moon Bat, is to read the Climategate emails

You mean the incident that proved your heroes were all lying fraudsters?

Hate to break it to you, cult boi, but that is how the world correctly saw it.

We get it already. You instantly fall for whatever propaganda which your masters trickle down your parched and eager throat. Then you run over here and tell us how yummy it was, and how badly you hate anyone who hasn't also guzzled down the cult's golden nectar. At this stage, the only purpose you serve is as an example of how cult devotion leads to self-lobotomizing.

 

[ding]

You should go back and take a long look at the source you copied and pasted from.

What is it that you want me to look for?

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

 

[otto105]

What is it that you want me to look for?

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

Denier dude, live today.


I don’t care nor does the current conditions care that once 3 million years ago the planet’s climate was different.

Do you live in that one?


Show me anything from a scientific organization which supports your position that our current condition is just normal.


Just one.

 

[ReinyDays]

Show me anything from a scientific organization which supports your position that our current condition is just normal.

The entirety of NOAA data ... what would you expect to be abnormal conditions? ...

Weather has been as normal as normal has ever been ... thus average weather, or climate, is also completely normal ... no hurricanes in Antarctica and no summer rains in California ...

 

[ding]

Denier dude, live today. I don’t care nor does the current conditions care that once 3 million years ago the planet’s climate was different. Do you live in that one? Show me anything from a scientific organization which supports your position that our current condition is just normal.

Just one.

Ok, here you go. Here's one.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[otto105]

Ok, here you go. Here's one.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

And the name of the organization is….?

 

[ding]

And the name of the organization is….?

Organizations don't write papers, dummy. Scientists do.

 

[ding]

And the name of the organization is….?

Now it's my turn. Show me a paper that justifies the feedback from CO2 being 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2.

 

[otto105]

Organizations don't write papers, dummy. Scientists do.

So, you answer my question with a giant no then.

 

[otto105]

Now it's my turn. Show me a paper that justifies the feedback from CO2 being 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2.

Show me one scientific organization which backs your position that human caused AGW is not happening.

 

[ding]

So, you answer my question with a giant no then.

Incorrect. Do you know why the northern hemisphere drives the planet's climate?

 

[ding]

Show me one scientific organization which backs your position that human caused AGW is not happening.

As soon as you can explain to me why the feedback is 2 - 3 times greater than the GHG effect. But you don't even know what I am talking about, do you?