CFACT has participated in the UN climate process going back to the original Rio Earth summit. We are an officially recognized NGO observer at COP 21.
CFACT’s display is in the NGO pavilion at booth 37c.
We used our space to inject four “inconvenient facts” into the COP. They are the kind of rock solid, 100% scientifically valid points that leave the warming-indoctrinated spluttering.
Here they are:
INCONVENIENT FACTS: TEMPERATURE
“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade” – University of Alabama, Huntsville
“The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.” “After 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.” – Remote Sensing Systems
“Satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor global temperature change.” – NASA, April, 1990
There is a “robust” cosmic ray-global temperature relationship… and thus provide further corroboration of the solar/cosmic ray theory of climate of Svensmark et al. – National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Aug 2015
“Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates. – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Energy and Climate Outlook, 2015
“Using the peer-reviewed climate model MAGICC, I estimate the marginal impact of carbon reduction promises called INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) from the EU, USA, China and the rest of the world, along with the likely global policy output. My major finding is that the total effect is very small: less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.” – Global Policy, Nov. 2015
All countries’ commitments from Paris = less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.
“Absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.” – NOAA
“Tide gauge records along coastlines provide evidence that mean sea levels (MSLs) have risen since the late nineteenth century with globally averaged rates of 1.33–1.98 mm per year… There has been “underestimation of possible natural trends of up to ~1 mm per year erroneously enhancing the significance of anthropogenic footprints.”
– University of Siegen, Nature Communications, July, 2015
“According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”
“Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,”
– NASA
“Global sea level is less sensitive to high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than previously thought.”
– Stanford, Geology, August, 2015
Island nations not sinking<
“No islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations.”
Geology, March, 2015
“The global population of polar bears is about 26,000 bears. This is up 1,000 bears from 2014. Estimations are between 25,000- 30,000 bears globally.” – International Union for Conservation of Nature
“Arctic sea ice is increasing, with the extent of ice at the highest it has been since 2004.
– Denmark Ocean and Ice Services
“Arctic sea ice persisted in the James and Hudson bays well into August of 2015. it was reported that the worst mid-summer ice conditions in 20 years was preventing the routine delivery of supplies by ship.” – NASA
“Sea ice in at least three Eastern Canadian polar bear subpopulations was well above normal for 2015.” – Canadian Ice Services
Arctic sea ice is up by at least a third after a cool summer in 2013. “It would suggest that sea ice is more resilient perhaps,” says Rachel Tilling, University College London.” – The Guardian, July 2015
– Journal of the American Meteorological Society, July 2012
“There is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.
“There is low confidence in any long term increases in tropical cyclone activity … and low confidence in attributing global changes to any particular cause.” Any increased hurricane damages “have not been conclusively attributed to anthropogenic climate change; most such claims are not based on scientific attribution methods.” There is “low confidence” for trends on tornadoes, and “the evidence for climate driven changes in river floods is not compelling.”
“When closely examined there appears to be no increase in extreme weather events in recent years compared to the period 1945–77, when the Earth’s mean temperature was declining. The global warming/extreme weather link is more a perception than reality (Khandekar et al. 2005). The purported warming/extreme weather link has been fostered by increased and uncritical media attention to recent extreme weather events. The latest IPCC documents appear to de-emphasize the warming/extreme weather link by suggesting ‘low confidence’ in linking some of the events to recent warming of the climate.”<
The Global Warming Extreme Weather Link, GWPF, 2013
This is an awesome compilation of facts that anyone who wishes to defend sanity and good science should keep in his or her back pocket. These facts will instantly smash down the climate change zealots into the muck from whence they emerged.
Anyone with any sense will see those are NotFacts, so it won’t be worth keeping in your back pocket.
HTH
Best,
D
Choose one of the items and let’s discuss the merits either way.
Already done, thanks!
Best,
D
These are the UNINTELLAGIBLE charts that put American’s to sleep… and lead them to proclaim that climate change isn’t an issue.
Try: “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” We’re in a struggle for hearts and minds and you climate fanatics are losing.
Right – facts are not compelling arguments for a segment of society.
Best,
D
Only your convoluted attempts to convince people of the nonsense you regurgitate ad nausea.
American’s are not believing or following your arguments.
No evidence to argue with, thanks!
Best,
D
I accept the facts. I reject the projections and hypothesis… as do all American’s in survey after survey.
Most surveys, the vast majority calls for taking action, so no idea what it is you think you are arguing.
Best,
D
Hey dano; That’s a giant load of idiocy between your ears; Climate rates down about the very bottom of ANY survey about concerns.
Unable to refute my claims, thanks!
Best,
D
You most certainly have no clue, its about time you examined the facts and stopped being a pedantic consensus follower.
You are utterly incapable of showing I have no clue.
Best,
D
As you have well demonstrated; and your charts say mm per year estimates.
He is unable to explain how CO2 cause any heating, just regurgitates a one sided opinion which is not science at all.
Dishonest – as you know, I did it here as well as many other times as well, so you are being purposely dishonest. Why the purposely dishonest?
Best,
D
Looking back at that link it was an occasion that you cut and pasted a not very likely cause, I have seen better explanations than yours, try it slows down radiated heat loss by absorption and molecular transfer for a very short time, this retains an infinitesimal amount of heat possibly causing a temp rise. Next try and quantify this theoretical effect with observed data?
It is still not explained how it’s possible to reverse the heat/cause and its effect/released CO2. This should have destroyed the balanced system millions of years ago.
All of our energy is from the Sun, eventually it is all transferred by radiation into Space. What we argue over the mechanism for this supported by observation. Warmists bend the facts by simulations.
Fairies flying around with blankets to keep us warm it is then, if that gives you a good feels.
Best,
D
this is silly – since when is someone’s fantasy prediction a fact?
and did you notice your tide gage graph ended in 1990 – ever wonder why?
Aside from the fact satellites cover the entire planet and are therefore more complete than a small section of the planet, your comedy line fantasy prediction gave me a giggle, thanks!
Best,
D
Or, more accurately, because some dishonest person would prefer not to show that the continuation of the graph shows a continuing constant rate of sea level rise. An inconvenient fact that’s better not to show..
Your own evidence contradicts you – see ‘Best Estimate’ in your second graph below.
a continuing constant rate of sea level rise.
This exercise is in my top twenty. Let’s have you refute yourself. Ready to refute yourself? OK, goody!
Take the CU Sea Level chart. Right click on it and use the command “Search Google for this image”. Reply with a chart from 2012, 2010 and similar charts from the source for 2008 and any year you choose that’s earlier.
Let us know what you find, TIA!
Best,
D
How about we not change the subject
Oh, whoops! Did I state refute yourself?!
I meant “show that durn ol’ Dano a thing or two”.
Please proceed. Let us know what you find.
Best,
D
okay, Dano, you did state refute yourself, twice now, but what you did not explain is why you would cut off one long-term data set that overlaps another short-term data set rather than show the entirety of both and compare / contrast / correlate between the two.
The answer is as simple as it is obvious – the AGW movement is not about an honest and open discussion of the facts.
And again, you contradict yourself with your 2nd graph below. See, I can repeat myself, too!
Sea level rise is accelerating. You can’t refute it.
And if you can’t figure out that satellites were launched and they do a better job, I can’t fix that.
Best,
D
What I see is a graph you can fit a straight line to.
Not only that, but a sea level rise rate that remains relatively constant despite the fluctuation in temperature over the same time period. Suggest you do a fun little ‘refute yourself’ exercise yourself and compare those two graphs. The ‘fact’ is, sea level rise has little to do with temperature effects and is mostly the result of gross geologic processes, such as sediment subsidence, erosion, and sedimentation.
Too bad NOAA doesn’t agree with you about satellite data for atmospheric temperatures. Then they wouldn’t have to go through those spurious exercises to ‘adjust’ land-based temperature data and we’d all be able to agree that there’s been no warming over the last 15 to 18 years.
Go ahead and get us those charts like I showed you, thanks!
Best,
D
Why don’t you go. .. get them… yourself… D
I have them already, thanks! They are for you to see how your assertion is false.
Best,
D
How do you refute a LIE and the moron doing the lying refuses to admit it IS A LIE; Of course the reason the morons wont admit to a lie is because it would END all their government handouts from the socialist governments of the world looking for MORE control and power.
How sad morons like dano with their heads up their rears suck up the stupidity.
40.000 repetitions = ! truth? Show how it happens, the cause and not just association.
Thanks, SLR is accelerating, as I showed. The cause is warming & thermal expansion/glacier melt.
Thanks!
Best,
D
The SLR is a camera to most people Dano. Try explaining what you mean for a change. It seems Nasa have confirmed a massive 2 mm per year rise, as it has been for a very long time. Nothing at all to do with CO2 as it remains a constant.
An interesting letter to Climatologists in the 1970’s on the predicted ice age threat. Of course one never happened but these guys had some interesting views on Climate variations. Probably a more honest bunch not bought with remuneration that promoted an agenda.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2015/12/scientists-still-science/
It seems Nasa have confirmed a massive 2 mm per year rise
False.
And I’ll take the points on offer:
o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Best,
D
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2015/12/scientists-still-science/
The letter from the Australian Prime Minister is published here with the response to the predicted Ice Age.
1974 report prepared by the CIA on national security issues related to “global cooling:”
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
I suspect you weren’t yet a twinkle in your daddy’s eyes in 1974. Yet, you deem it appropriate to tell people who lived through that period that it never happened. We didn’t have the internet, yet, but we did have TV, radio, newspapers … and, yes, various magazines … which all quoted scientists who claimed we were entering an ice age.
Many of those same ‘scientists’ are the same ones who, today, claim “global warming.” And they are the same ones who, today, claim they never predicted “global cooling.” Funny thing, that.
“Climate scientists” lost their credibility some 40 years ago. Back then, they were simply wrong. Today, they have proven themselves corrupt.
Best,
T
Deflection from false assertion aside, I can take these points again, cuz different commenter:
o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Best,
D
Continue to play your prepubescent games. Shows how unserious you are.
Best,
T
PS: Are YOU corrupt … or just incredibly naive and gullible?
I am pointing out that your talking point has been refuted soooooooooo many times it is a comedy skit now.
Try to think it through.
Best,
D
I thought it through. Decades ago.
Your turn.
Best,
T
More than that – we were there when it happened.
So … you decided to brush off the CIA report, huh? Another Inconvenient Truth?
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Don’t blame you. It’s a lot easier to mock people, and play doltish games, than to deal with reality.
Best,
T
The vast majority of scientists weren’t no ding-dang coolin, as I already pointed out. And you thought through with your big thinks.
Interesting that this hokum is recycled at this time, the warmest year on record.
Best,
D
Brush-off, it is, then.
Best,
T
I already provided you the evidence for my assertion. Try to…..erm……………………”think” it thru. The scientific community was not no ding-dang coolin’.
Best.
D
You provided no such “evidence” … just assertions and prepubescent games. And if your “evidence” is that ridiculous paper that William Connelly was involved in … don’t even. I’ve already been through that one … it’s just another example of him trying to rewrite history, as he is notorious for doing.
“Not no ding-dang coolin’?” Is this you demonstrating your scientific prowess? If your ‘published’ paper(s) includes phrases like that, I can see why you can’t provide a link to anything.
Just because you’re a fool, doesn’t mean you need to work so hard at it.
Best,
T
I gave you a link to the scholarship.
Do you know how to read? Do you know what hyperlinks are and how to spot them?
Best,
D
You can lie and obfuscate all you want … you’re not fooling anybody.
Best,
T
You too are unable to show any lie or obfuscation.
Best,
D
Vast majority no ding-dang coolin.
Best,
D
Don’t look now, but you seem to be losing it.
Best,
T
Educated peepul know the vast majority of scientist said no coolin’.
Can you grasp it? Do you have the ability?
Best,
D
I ‘grasp’ that scientists were trying to scare the world with global cooling and horror stories of coming ice ages.
I ‘grasp’ that when the climate reversed course, the same scientists decided to do the same … and scare us with horror stories of global warming run amok.
If the ‘majority’ of scientists thought the world was going to warm, then maybe they should have said something when the news agencies all claimed that ‘scientists say’ we are all going to die in the coming ice age.
There’s a saying … ‘Fool me once, shame on you … fool me twice, shame on me.’
The climate changes. It has done so for 4.5 billion years. It will continue to do so until the sun goes nova, or we’re hit with a giant meteor that ends us.
In spite of you putting on an air of scientific superiority, and attempting to browbeat people who don’t agree you, most people require more than that to convince them. I look for solid evidence … and so far, it’s just not there.
Trolling, and hi-jacking threads is neither impressive, nor amusing … just annoying. It’s obvious that you, and others like you, have no interest in convincing anybody of your case. You just get off on insulting people … it puffs you up and makes you feel all smart and stuff. How tiresome you are.
Best,
T
scientists were trying to scare the world with global cooling and horror stories of coming ice ages
You were refuted already, thanks! But comedy skit still good!
Best,
D
You’re a stubborn little Denier … not particularly skillful, but pigheaded and arrogant nonetheless.
Best,
T
It utterly fails to acknowledge the science the President shared with the nation decade prior, so no wonder it was buried, it is useless. Which you’d know if you had an education in the sciences.
Best,
D
Yup, you’ve completely gone off the rails, now.
Which president are you referring to? A decade prior to 1974 would Lyndon Johnson.
Do you mean to tell me that you think Johnson believed in global warming … in the 1960’s? And that I should have learned that little tidbit in a science class?
Yikes!
Best,
T
<a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27285" title="TeaPurty shows us his ignorance over and over and over and over and over and over for our amusement!!!!!! Educate yourself.
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/215909f9f37bde05c7e1cf448413f68e70a251ea309d9759e7d5066a1b575147.jpg
More misdirection and obfuscation.
Not one word about global warming … indeed, not one word about CLIMATE, period.
Best,
T
Or don’t educate yourself and stay blissful.
Best,
D
Seventy pages of blah-blah-blah … but still nothing about climate or global warming!
The longer you spout off, the more evidence you provide that you are clueless, ill-informed, and frankly unqualified to address issues of science … or logic.
Very teenagerish.
Best,
T
Stay blissful.
Best,
D
Stay teenagerish.
Best,
T
Stay refuted.
best,
D
Stay …
best,
T
Funny you mention satellites, sport. Since being launched in 2002, Envisat data shows a sea level rise of +/- 0.323mm/yr. or around 1.3in/century. Ooohhh so scary I don’t know how we’ll survive it.
How do you explain that from 8,000 to 15,000 years ago sea level rose about 14mm/year, or more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year? That info comes from the University of Colorado (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg). I think you are either cherry-picking your time segments, or following some alarmist talking points meant to frighten simple people into believing the “anthropogenic
climate change” hoax. Your second graph with the delta T on the Y-axis seems to ignore the recent pause in temperature change, one that’s coming up on 20 years.
I just wish you would realize that this whole “climate change” Big Lie does have a purpose, and that purpose is 3-fold: 1) frighten people into allowing further expansion of an already fantastically bloated government; 2) allow for the generation of new fraudulent taxes that addresses this non-issue; and 3) allow for unquestioned wealth transfer from what’s left of the middle class to the elites, and to a lesser extent to the 3rd world nations who are lining up with their hands out. So infuriating people are even giving this nonsense any consideration, and not realizing this for what it is – a HUGE scam.
How do you explain that from 8,000 to 15,000 years ago sea level rose about 14mm/year, or more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year?
What does the end of an ice age have to do with man-caused warming raising sea level now?
the recent pause in temperature change, one that’s coming up on 20 years.
There is zero pause, The warming continues unabated.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6894d3ea1b353c4a7879a719e47d338624c7dd69b32784e485ca695029369b75.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4dde202afffc381aa92642b226ab89ee8b6c3ee50cfdbba063675bcbb8b840c7.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/74b5c8c737136b62dbd62eaf888cf327c3597e0d2f9ac1992c2c82cdf97d1d30.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f722a34330eaffb0e9a467364ccc1fec3adf738a5602665fe9ec9ab36c6ed570.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5e8d3c6925e7e8dec21ab599ffa03c9b8c1c350d03856ab6009eda94e4c53181.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/401fdd521c3f08c59cbfabae2d1e0c975c9d6721cc31275c1679cf43baaea81d.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e3480019ddc46285aa006f9bdd8780258eabcbde7c1d98ee417b14ceb882806.png
You can hardly label a 7,000 year time span “the end of an ice age.” Furthermore, on average since the last ice age, the rate of sea level increase change (i.e. the 2nd derivative plot) has been decreasing, with the exception of small time segments exhibiting delayed response to small scale variations in solar output.
All the rest of your graphs are great displays of the data that was modified after the fact (see climategate 1 and 2) to “prove” the trend you mention. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
Proven liar James Taylor AND Climategate. Twofer!
Best,
D
Show proof. And the famous hockey stick wasn’t a lie?
James Taylor:
Here is the AMS blog discussing his lying about findings of a paper and here is another statement by the authors pointing out Taylor’s mendacity (and Heartland’s forging of AMS letterhead for disinformation campaign).
Here is a comment in another Taylor misleading column from the author of another paper Taylor misrepresented.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/241aacc32746bfaf9bf183359c3ec47be67e598a18e9714cd90330593bb04e65.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/21d70736e92046e66361f142448a0a06d1f6a97daef08f04f99d9a5c5953323b.gif
Hockey stick validated many, many times. Educate yourself. Many hockey sticks found in nature. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13cc366909503e6870a14db3c38d6dd28523fb6efac4f06b0fd14d43753e4cf8.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c7bfa99cdc2f4e86c0efe86b0af2effa564a420f5b316edfc5c4a2750159ff5.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1695667086760df3c263faa7c971cdf43fd520b33d055cff3e98ba96ae7c421.gif https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dee04ce4408b026f6407d8845fb61b4ee11b1b0eb7d9546c41de1b675037e479.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6717333e478af35efc342e6aa30dd88c6be776137f60b93b2535280d000d31d5.png
Best,
D
Your first hyperlink provided us with this information, which the link did not refute: “To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known e-mail addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n = 1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses—1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated, and 2) climate expertise, 3) liberal political ideology, and 4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated—with 1) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, 2) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human caused, and 3) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus, and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related.” So what are you saying? Even AMS doesn’t refute the content of the paper in question.
Your link to the Forbes article just shows Taylor exposing some truths on a poorly framed survey with the people behind it using loaded terms like “denier”! How can you expect there to be any learning when the people doing the teaching already have their minds made up? If nothing else it shows the entire “97% consensus” is a complete fraud. And that “Great Acceleration” chart – whoa, what a barrel full of nonsense. The left half all goes back to human population as the common denominator, and the right half has to manhandle the units of the axes in order for the message to fit properly.
And regardless of all the hockey sticks you provide (and yes, as a chemist we find hockey sticks too such as titration inflection points and runaway reactions), Mann’s hockey stick only works when you cherry-pick the past data: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/smoking-gun-of-wide-ranging-hockey-stick-malfeasance/
You were duped. The AMS laid it out simply so that even denialists can understand.
Best,
D
The hockey stick is a proven fraud.
Whatever figures are fed in, the output graph is always the same.
It is a con.
This is hilarious comedy: hockey stick is a proven fraud
I LOLzed!
Best,
D
Dano the idiot from Hawaii Five-o had no brains and could ONLY follow some asinine scrip just like the dano here.
Mean
LMAO. The only thing that continues “unabated” are the delusions that that exist between your ears.
Garbage in garbage out..
You forgot one agenda: control. Every thing the left is pushing now is designed to increase tension, decrease societal cohesion and allow government to take control of more aspects of our lives.
Exactly. The classic Cloward-Piven strategy of a manufactured crisis.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
Thanks for providing the link. It’s a great summary of the application of Cloward-Piven. This one was missing in my files.
And a new world order of control, as Rocky suggests.
You’re correct, they are not all facts put rather correct interpretations of the facts along with facts. The real question to be answered is: Are the AGW alarmists liars with the facts (per the old nostrum ‘figures don’t lie liars figure’)? The answer is yes, both by commission as well as omission.
Feel free to produce the ideologically pure, free market refutations to the charts I’ve presented – throughout this thread – that point out the NotFacts of CFACT. Use the data collected from the NewScience that show that the regular ol’ science is wrong.
TIA
Best,
D
the charts you’ve shown are cherry picked. Show a chart that reflects the cycles over many eons, not just the convenient recent past. The cherry picked recent past is lying by omission,
You can’t show a chart that is cherry-picked, not a single one.
Best,
D
Like I said, the liars are the alarmists that omit essential data.
“The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere, modern humans didn’t exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world’s seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.”
Jonathan Swift wrote of the AGW alarmists and called them Lilliputans
You can’t show a chart that is cherry-picked, like I said.
But I’m glad you are showing that having this much CO2 in the atmosphere results in a much warmer world, with real-world consequences – good job!
Best
I presented the results from the chart. You can google for the chart yourself. Actually, you are using junk science with your temperature/CO2 consequence. True science concludes that higher temperatures increase CO2.
What you concluded with is the commission of an AGW alarmist lie.
Still unable to show how any chart was cherry-picked aside, this was entertaining:
True science concludes that higher temperatures increase CO2.
You were duped. There is no NewScience or NewPhysics working on earth – a NewPhysics that states earth is the only place in the universe where an increase in concentration of a GHG by 40% will have no effect on the surface temperature of the planet.
HTH
Best,
D
Actually, the NewScience is AGW built upon lies.
Continuing to be unable to show how any chart was cherry-picked aside, you are unable to show a single lie. That’s entertaining too.
Best,
D
Sorry, D, but ‘regular old science’ does show CO2 increases in the atmosphere with increasing temperature. Just Google CO2 solubility in waterhttps://www.google.com/search?q=co2+solubility+in+water&oq=co2+solubili&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.11787j0j4&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgdii=_. Doesn’t take a ‘climate scientist’ to figure out what this means to many of the most ridiculous claims of climate alarmism. Understand you have to try to deny it, but good luck refuting high school chemistry.
Thanks! Putting CO2 into the atmosphere warms the planet! We know!
Best,
D
Dimwit,
You do realize that those graphs show…more like prove…that warming water, like what happens when the climate warms, releases CO2 into the atmosphere. In other words, a warming planet results in, rather than from, CO2 in the atmosphere. No one could be that dumb; you know, you are just incapable of admitting it. Amazingly dishonest! Dingbat!
Dingo, your 1st post was a side-by-side comparison of two graphs using different measurement methods, omitting part of a data-set that overlapped the other. The definition of cherrypicking, Dimbulb.
Wow. That’s not actually what these two charts depict. But whatever gives you the good feels.
But here it is in a single chart for you. It makes it harder to see the change in rate and measurement method, but hey, it can’t be cuzed of cherrypickin!
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/536f222df2e80fb71aaabbcd9368fd0fb3499e3f3f2bf98334ac26d8477c7dce.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8ac99fc06b658727b6bbf5f451841e4b1a9d357428ccd16ee60a2ce66008ea61.jpg
“That’s not what these 2 charts depict”
Dorcus, as I said your 1st 2 charts above show tide gage data ending in 1993 next to satellite data starting in 1993. Clearly, we still have tide gage data, yet the tide gage chart ends in 1993. Now you’re posting 2 more charts that again show a relatively constant rate of sea level rise. Are you deliberately trying to undermine yourself, Dillweed?
Thanks, smartie, the purpose was to separate out tide gauge from satellite data to highlight change. Very, very, very simple to grasp.
As far as this comedy: that again show a relatively constant rate of sea level rise. apparently you lack the ability to read charts, yet call me namie-names and stomp your widdle foots, Aren’t you precious?
Or maybe you;re just pouting because the data are similar? Could be, makes as much sense as the rest of your comedy skits.
best,
d
Danko,
Thanks for showing us 2 more charts, which unwittingly display another example of data manipulation. Notice the difference between the 2? Dipwad.
You can not explain a single detail about how the data are manipulated.
You made that up.
Best,
D
I’ll admit that’s speculation, however reasonable considering the differences between the charts… I’m not going to spend the time to research it, though such an exercise is likely to be fruitful. Either way, you have failed to show how 3 mm/yr of sea level rise (around a foot per century) is supposed to be so scary or justifies the dire predictions. Both charts show no reaction to the Dust Bowl heat wave of the ’30’s and 40’s or the record cold spell of the ’70s, which makes me want to repeat my earlier point regarding the lack of correlation with temperature.
It’s equally clear that you’ll never admit that CO2 in the atmosphere is a ‘result’ of a warming climate rather than the cause, despite the clear laboratory evidence – too devastating to your phony arguments. Release of excess CO2 by the oceans is such a clear consequence of a warming climate and the only phenomenon that can explain the historical correlation between CO2 and Temperature (did you really think it was caveman campfires?) that it’s not worth arguing over. I’m also feeling the need to be productive at work and running out of insulting PG-rated names beginning with D, Dorko, so I’ll just sign off with…Go#Sand
Thanks lad, you made up a little fib about data manipulation.
Best,
D
Show the mechanism Dano, explain the Science.
Sorry Dano, estimates are not facts and if the Earth begins to cool and ice sheets expand we will see the real problem as so much of the farmland will be covered again. Everyone of the warmers uses a short cherry-picked data set and ignores the Earth’s past 50,000 year changes, much less the geologic history over several 100 millions of years. That is like measuring 1 minute of a day and predicting what will happen over the remainder of the year.
estimates are not facts
I’ve given no estimates. As for the rest of this typing episode, all I can say is ‘take a science class’.
Best,
D
Sorry Dano, I am a scientist with over 300 college hours and an advanced degree, so maybe you should become a little more informed.
Yes, and? How does that excuse your ludicrous gibberish?
Best,
D
Wow, you really a delusional denier. Please tell me how long each glacial and interglacial periods lasted and where the seal level was during those periods of time since you so to be so sure of yourself.
you really a delusional denier.
I made an eagle shadow puppet from that projection.
How does typing that you claim to have an advanced degree excuse that laughable comment?
Best,
D
That is okay that you only know how to dismiss you obvious ignorance by being flip. You can and will believe what you want with no regard of the validity of your comments other than meaningless smug remarks like a 5th grader on the playground calming you daddy can whip my daddy. Good bye, no intelligent life on your planet.
How does that excuse your ludicrous gibberish?
Best,
D
Troll tetrodotoxin, good word for dimmo.
You mean the type where you learn to BASE your ENTIRE WORLD temperature claims for a century BASED on the tree core drillings from TWO TREES in Canada ?
Nope.
Best,
D
Hey you generally get around to that insult earlier, did you lose count? Numbers is probably not your strong point.
Then what is the 1981 Hansen (laughable in and of itself) chart if not estimates. Oh, that’s right. In that delusional little world that exists between your ears the year is 2100.
what is the 1981 Hansen (laughable in and of itself) chart if not estimates
The chart is a ‘projection’. Corporations and militaries do them all the time.
Best,
D
go and play get some air, stop boring us with your lies.
I have taught many science classes.
You are the one who does know anything about the scientific method.
You are 500 years behind the times. I bet you haven’t even read Karl Popper.
Scientific method!
drink!
Best,
D
DNFTT
So Dano, we can discuss which estimate is more accurate, and how much man vs. nature drive sea level, however, you agree that we have no years more than around 3mm in rise. You therefore will further agree that this shows that stories that Miami or island nations are currently experiencing extreme events from sea level, rather than local conditions are FALSE. The paper clip to two penny rate of sea level rise is not currently inundating anyone. What does that mean for the future? Well, there are the computer models, and they’re track records are miserable. So far no extreme scenarios show any signs of likelihood. Anyone terrified by the hype who would like to sell us their beachfront property at a discount, come on down!
Or sell your beachfront property to the developers happily building resorts in the Maldives or Kiribati. Not exactly fleeing are they?
https://www.google.fr/search?q=maldives+resort&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=5H5iVoqnF8K3a8fYroAP
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g294121-Republic_of_Kiribati-Hotels.html
I’m actually thinking of starting a business where I find denialists for desperate beachfront property owners who want to sell.
Best,
D
You therefore will further agree that this shows that stories that Miami or island nations are currently experiencing extreme events from sea level, rather than local conditions are FALSE
You’ll have to tell that to the people of Miami – too bad they didn’t consult you before they spent all that money on mitigating sea level rise – but there’s still time: they need to spend a couple hundred million more to stave of the seas – call them before its too late!!!!!
there are the computer models, and they’re track records are miserable
Actually, no. They are pretty good:
Here’s how the models are doing.
A different look at latest run.
An interesting depiction of latest run.
Here’s how some older models are doing.
And some older ones.
And some older ones.
And some older ones.
And some older ones all together.
And what several scientist said in the 1980s that was surprisingly accurate about Arab Spring.
Here is the the very first climate projection from 1981, constructed from this paper. Pretty dang good, no? Not what the disinfo sites tell you, is it?
Here is something from the 1970s that is surprisingly accurate as well.
Here is an early prediction from an early pioneer of climate science, from 1975, 50 years ago. Pretty darn good. (source, and original paper)
Heck, even Exxon scientists were pretty durn close in the early 1980s!
This is where we are now.
Best,
D
Dude! Take another look! These models are not bad at ‘predicting’ the past, but begin to dramatically depart right when AGW is supposed to kick in! Doofus!
Sounds legit.
Best,
D
Right…about as ‘legit’ as running your model into the past around 100 years to try to hide the fact that it dramatically departs from reality almost immediately. Note CFACTs reality-based graph at the top of the page…Dipstick!
You’ve been refuted already, thanks!
Best,
D
Actually, I haven’t, Dingleberry. The models do indeed depart from observations just as man-made CO2 emissions ramp up and it is no coincidence. The models simply way overestimate the effect of CO2 on atmospheric temperature.
And the charts show that temps are right back in line, but who knows what you are flailing on about.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/54c428174260eee6096c41765386be1b43fa8f88b59ed9a9fd331f4fa6c8b6e2.png
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e89b7dd5a0740b14550a3f10761520ddabaf7aed332473a6733cf2dd823b65f1.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f2417e3af809622ecf4ed9fde25f49e2bed78e93aad1401aab28e3a900d48bd1.jpg
There were a couple of years in there that the sea level actually fell (around 20011 or so). Actually, I think photos are a better sign of whether or not the sea level is rising or falling so I will bow to this one: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/no-change-in-california-sea-level-since-1871/
Measurements are actually a better sign of whether or not the sea level is rising or falling.
Best,
D
There’s also a consideration that it’s not sea level rising or it would be uniform worldwide. Some of it is subsidence. Another shows pretty stable sea level http://www.john-daly.com/photomrk.htm
Wow. John Daly. Where’d you haul out that old hokumer?
Nevertheless, satellites and buoys show increasing rate of sea level rise.
Best,
D
Perhaps you can explain why aren’t they evacuating those Pacific islands that they say are sinking? Why are they still building on them? Why aren’t people moving out of lower Manhattan, Florida, New Orleans, etc.? If the rise is so significant, people should be moving out in droves. Regards.
They are spending millions – soon to be hundreds of millions – just in Miami to keep the saltwater out.
Why aren’t people moving out? No idea. Ask them.
Best,
D
Infiltration of saltwater is not the same as rising sea levels. What’s under water now that wasn’t before?
OMG. That was hilarious! I LOLzed!
Best,
D
Please answer the question. What is under water now that wasn’t before.
Almost all people know that what is happening in Miami and US Southeast is from rising seas.
Best,
D
You say they’re trying to keep out the salt water. That’s not the same thing as rising seas or people would be moving. http://www.solinst.com/resources/papers/101c4salt.php
Miami – rising seas. Thanks!
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a32423c5cdd45d2d89b9f175e57adf453a0ae92fdcba436f024adc9df1e6caab.png
Dano….you are a fibber of the first order. Zealot.
You are unable to show any fibbin.
Best,
D
I am willing to make a bet with you for 1 month’s income from me and from you. The models that are used to predict climate change use the same algorithms models as the weather models so the bet is that the weather reports for the next 20 days will be perfect for that time period. If they are not then you not only owe me 1 months wages but you have to keep your mouth shut and quit spewing your nonsense.
The climate and weather models are not the same. As you know weather forecasts are rarely perfect. So inane proposition.
Thanks though.
Best,
D
The same goes for the climate change models in spades as there are hundreds of things that can influence tree rings which is where the baseline for the GW BS came from until 1850. But then they graphed the extirpated AKA guessed at temperature from the thermometers. You should also remember that if you do the same tree ring data from 1850 they do not match the thermometers.
I LOLzed!
Best,
D
You obviously don’t even suspect what you are talking about.
Everyone with some sense, realized when the data scammer in chief over the WORLD DATA COLLECTION center at MetOffice Climate Research Unit
PHIL JONES said ” The scientific communty would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8.
OK IT HAS but it’s only seven years of data
and it ISN’T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
Everyone looks around at WHAT RECORD in 2005 had
STOPPED WARMING in 1 9 9 8 and
WAS COOLER but ONLY JUST: NOT statistically SIGNFICANTLY?
Oh that’s right that was the RAW DATA without ADJUSTMENT at ALL
PUT
ONLINE that way by LAW to stop – ADJUSTMENTS FRAUD like PHIL got caught and admitted he had been doing 12 years –
EVERYONE with some SENSE realized when they saw him saying that in 2 0 0 5
then in his DON’T GO TO JAIL FEB 2010 BBC INTERVIEW:
when he got CAUGHT being SEEN what he SAID above and in order to not go to JAIL
fessed up – EVERYONE knew when they saw the BBC and HIM in the interview saying :
BBC: Is it TRUE that THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING since 1 9 9 8
and that there has ben in face slight COOLING?
JONES: YES. I did the calculations and find THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING since 1 9 9 8 and in fact there has been some SLIGHT but not SIGNIFICANT…
C*O*O*L*I*N*G.
Hmm. Look around then: WHAT’S the raw data say that’s placed there by LAW to stop FIDDLING PHIL and YOUR CHURCH?
It says
no warming since 1 9 9 8 and slight but not statistically significant
C* O* O* L* I* N* G*,
ThermomoBiLLy.
Wow. Then AFTER THEY STILL FIRED his a&^ what did the
WORLD
METEOROLOGICAL
ORGANIZATION the MET OFFICE say in 2 0 1 3?
Here ya go stupid I’ll let you read it: Here’s a hint: There’s been no warming since ’98 ACCORDING to THEM: THE ONES who FIRED him for HIDING that there’s BEEN no WARMING since ’98
AND
just a little
statistically insignificant,
C O O L I N G,
hillbilly.
http://tinyurl.com/ocfh25t
You ignorant hick. You can’t put more coolant in the air and make a magic heater so if you use fire it makes the sky hot.
You’re just educated in the same public schools where they taught you pot’s like heroin.
Go figure, you’re too stupid to properly analyze what happens when light shines on a thermometer.
Everybody with any sense knew the church was fake when they told you a freezing gas bath was magically a giant heater in the sky because you put more magic gas in the sky that originally defined that gas as THE ATMOSPHERIC COOLANT.
Hick.
Awesome Yes. Exactly that. They have no argument and the evidence that destroys their entire theoretical and subsequently modelled contentions are both the product of their OWN studies and conclusive, and the IPCC itself admits as much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Excellent statements of things I knew but didn’t have in one place. Thanks
I shall stuff this info down certain peoples throat. Not that it will make a difference b/c certain ppl are willfully blind to the truth.
Well done.
For some inconvenient reason, nobody wants to discuss the fact that our star is descending into a Solar Grand Minimum? Why? Because if we did, all of the patterns would easily be seen that accompany this natural solar cycle, extreme weather events such as historic droughts and flooding events, 2-3ft of hail last March in Bogota Columbia at just about zero on the equator, rise in volcanic eruptions, rise in earthquakes ect. There’s lots of historical data to look back on and compare like the fact that Solar Grand Minimums are preceded by WARMING PERIODS! All these frauds pushing the CO2 hoax also might want to look at what was going on throughout our solar system when it was warming on earth, the weather changed on all the planets in our solar system not just here on earth! The polar ice caps on Mars melted when we were going through the last warming period that ended over 18yrs ago! If any educated person studied the effects of the coming Grand Minimum in conjunction with the fact that our planet is in the midst of a magnetic reversal, one would see that everything that is happening on our planet coincides with these two natural cycles.All the CO2 that we have contributed to our atmosphere, has be BENEFICIAL TO OUR PLANET PERIOD! We have enough “REAL” problems to deal with, we don’t need fools creating a crisis that will do nothing more than extract what little wealth we have left in this country and redistribute it to some 3rd world country that wants to blame us for every severe thunderstorm or drought. How ’bout we all choose to come together and eliminate the “Political Class” in this country so we can get our country on a path of prosperity. The “HIPICRITICRATS” want to distribute division, hate, fear, anger ect. As long as they can keep us divided, they retain power! History repeating itself because of blind faith fools who don’t want to put forth the energy to be an INDIVIDUAL! WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE!
So much wrong, so little time. I’ll take the easy points on offer, though:
o Based on solar activity, we’re now entering global cooling (without good evidence) [15 points]
o Reference, or citation to something which uses the words, “hoax,” “scam,” “swindle,” “fraud”, etc [10 points]
o Objects in solar system are X, so Y on earth is impossible [15 points]
o Global warming stopped in 1998, or other such cherry-picking of small time intervals (add 5 points for each time a single date with an anomalous event is used as the start date for when global warming stopped) [15 points]
o CO2 means more plants/food/is good/is life [10 points]
o AGW believers want a world government/socialist/whatever [15 points]
That comment had a high words : points density.
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a6dad99e36b637149ff68045ced655d868b7dbe3a5fd37717e0543d217221d0b.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f97878fb3cbef0ac6143426ee716263ccbde6ec5bcff88109beb4f15db79ad71.gif
Dano, please enlighten me……..
The bulleted items are long-refuted talking points. The charts show any Grand Minimum will be de minimus globally, albeit locally may have stronger effects.
HTH
Best,
D
Facts are facts. You don’t get your own facts. That display is not facts.
HTH
Best,
D
Hey Troll, full of shit , as usual!
You cannot refute a single word or graph i have presented, as usual!
Best,
D
Because your graph is total BULLSHIT! IDIOT!
Still not refuting.
best,
D
It HAS been proven that climate idiots have used “FUDGED” numbers to “PROVE” their science, RIDICULOUS! Just like YOU!
You can’t show how any of my numbers are FUDGED, thanks!
Best,
D
Really? You have *proof* that climate scientists have fudged the numbers to show a non-existent global warming!? Do tell! Please, show me your “proof”. I’ve only been following climate science for about 35 years, so I might have missed something. Enlighten me.
Take a Hard look at John Caseys work, and Yes it is still GARBAGE IN=Garbage OUT when it comes to computer models of the climate, Whoops, NO WARMING for the last 18+ years when you use TRUE temp readings from NASA, hope it doesn’t take another 35 years for you to GET IT!
Apparently you and I have very different notions of what “true” means. So tell me what the “TRUE temp readings from NASA” are, and why the current NASA numbers are showing a temperature increase. Enlighten me. Ya see, I thought that is has been quite obvious – EVEN FROM THE RAW NUMBERS WITH NO ADJUSTMENTS AT ALL – the decade of the 70’s was warmer on average than the decade of the 60s. the decade of the 80’s was warmer than the 70’s, the 90s warmer than the 80s, the 00s warmer than the 90s, and this decade, although not quite half over, is on average warmer than the 00s. Those are measured values, btw, so you, hand-waving, won’t make them go away. The decadal average temps say you are wrong.
Now, tell me your reasons for claiming NASA doesn’t use actual numbers. And then tell me why every other country’s science organizations don’t use the numbers they have to refute NASA’s lying numbers. You do know that all the temp data in the world is freely available online, don’t you? WHOOPS, science talks, bs walks. Show me the science – peer-reviewed, published in reputable science journals – and I’ll take back my comments publicly.
You might try watching “Climate Hustle”, maybe you won’t be so quick to HUSTLE US!!!
You might try reading an actual climate science textbook or two, and reading *why* you deniers exist, like Merchants of Doubt, Conway and Oreskes, Sierra Club Press, 2010, or Climate Cover-up, J Hoggan, Greystone, 2009, or even Mike Mann’s The Hockey Stick and the Climate wars, Columbia University Press, 2012.
You mean this kind of BS?
“FUDGED NUMBERS, GARBAGE IN= GARBAGE OUT”, take YOUR garbage elsewhere!
You can’t show how any of my numbers are FUDGED, thanks!
best,
D
Your first two charts on sea level had different axis’s and different data sources… So I say again: With these sets of crap, you have lost the argument, American’s don’t get your data and don’t believe your drivel.
As I said before, you might as well try: “The sky is falling…”
With the crap you have lost the argument
Huh. Who knew that providing a wide range of reinforcing data made me lose an argument?
Tarnation, Martha!
Best,
D
Lots of graphs and to be honest I don’t really have the expertise to understand it all but doesn’t the global mean surface one at the top show no substantial increase since about 1998? Is that relating to actual temperature or does anomalies mean it is measuring something altogether different? Not looking for an online war just want to understand what you are saying.
Cheers
doesn’t the global mean surface one at the top show no substantial increase since about 1998?
No, but even so, what about starting at 1997? 1996? 1995? 1999? 2000? Why 1998 only? How strong is an argument that depends on such a narrow start point (biased statistics aside)? that is why I have some charts with many different start points – to illustrate this point.
Anomalies are not a measure, they are a depiction of a change in data, typically from some baseline; for temperature, a climatically-relevant period of time, often chosen to capture something (climate = 30 years).
HTH
Best,
D
Strange even the “global warming” scammers admit that their temperature increase claims are SMALLER than the PROVEN SCIENTIFIC DEVIATION in such data. That means the “claims are completely worthless.
Gibberish.
Best,
D
You’re right, the earth IS flat!
Wow. Arguing scientists, pseudo scientists and folks who can only swear and call names gives me a headache…Wait a minute…. I haven’t had a headache since the last time Global Warming/ Global Cooling/ ummm CLIMATE change was discussed by that assembly of nerds and pseudo nerds. EUREKA!!!! Scientists arguing causes non-scientists to have headaches!!! I need a UN group to hold meetings in places that really can assist — like Tahiti! yes! Sun, Sand, tropical paradise…..oh….wait….last time i was in Tahiti I was sexually assaulted by a brown skinned beautiful young woman who cited a scientific study that proved my headaches were from lack of ….oh….no…..wait….that never happened. EUREKA!!! CLIMATE change discussions put me at risk for early dreaming of browned skinned young women who want……zzzzzzzzzzz
Great presentation of inconvenient facts. It was especially forceful since it used data from a variety of sources which both believers and skeptics can appreciate. Of course, there are believers who are so locked into their beliefs that no amount of data will convince them or turn them from their agenda. I was pleased to see that the influence of sun and solar activity which Svensmark proposed and proved has been found favorable to CFACT and many of us skeptics. Keep up the good fight.
B. Hussein Obama’s intention expressed in his second
inaugural speech is to enforce the Cap & Trade regime by executive orders
through his EPA group of Eco-Nazis. The Cap & Trade program is designed to
impose heavy penalties on oil & gas companies, coal mines, electricity
companies, and on transportation (both trucking and private cars); all aimed to
favor green and renewable energies – solar, wind, biofuels. In his energy
program he completely ignored nuclear power plants – the only kind that
produces ZERO greenhouse gasses. The final aim of this program is to
nationalize all our energy industries. That low-IQ bloviating gasbag Kerry (who
voted for the war before he voted against it), our new Secretary of State, was
one of the two torch bearers (the other was Congressman Waxman) for the first
attempt to impose the Cap & Trade monstrosity in Congress, and is now
formally charged by Obama to spread it domestically and internationally
(“Global Warming = the New Weapon of Mass Destruction”- the idiot declared).
Obama just made an agreement with the Chinese communists to destroy our economy
while waiting for the Chinese to do the same in about 20 years from now.
It is useful to remind ourselves of the 40-year old history
of that UN-led conspiracy. It started in the 1970’s by the announcement of the
coming “New Ice Age” scam (remedy = our unilateral disarmament; the big guru of
Global warming hoax is Dr. Hansen who started his young career by that New Ice
Age scam); when that panic petered out in the 1990’s (after Reagan destroyed
the Soviet Union) it continued by the announcement of
the man-made catastrophic “Global Warming” hoax (remedy = UN-sponsored world
socialist government to “spread the wealth around” and “reduce” the world
population from the existing 6.5 billion down to the “sustainable” level of 1.5
billion); after 20 consecutive years of considerable global cooling
that panic was replaced by the “Climate Change” flimflam (so whatever happens
with our climate – do “something”!) and now by the “Cap & Trade” power grab
with the purpose of nationalizing our energy companies. Whatever that coterie
of government-paid drones controlled by the far-left UN Panel “specialists” is
cooking up by means of faked data, reverse graphs (another guru of that
conspiracy Dr. Mann “confused” cause and effect in his “hockey stick” graphs),
and erroneous calculations – the final aim is to empower a new UN-sponsored
world socialist government authorized to “spread the wealth around” and so save
the planet from a sure annihilation caused by “the rapacious and irresponsible
criminal capitalists”. Note: for that Paris meeting on Climate Change dangers
those government-paid drones “recalculated” their results and “recalibrated”
their instruments to “demonstrate” that the Earth temperature did increase!
Those green and renewable energies – solar, wind, biofuels
– are all energy balance-negative (they require more conventional energy to
produce than they can generate), unreliable, extremely expensive, and
environmentally destructive. Also, there is now a wealth of contrary literature
debunking that gigantic conspiracy, written by investigative reporters and
politicians Christopher Horner, Robert Carter, Senator Inhofe, Rupert Darwall,
AW Montford, and David Archibald among other investigative journalists and
politicians describing the lies, fakes, phony data, opposite conclusions,
redacting by UN political hacks, reverse graphs, destruction of negative data,
etc., that have exposed this far-left propaganda in painful detail. Also,
the Oregon Petition (see Internet) signed by 31,487 independent US scientists
(including 9,029 with PhD degrees), disputes the false “science” of the UN
panel and its “scientists”. Several Eco-Nazis submitted false names and
credentials in an attempt to compromise that effort started by the Nobel Prize
in Physics Edward Teller (now deceased); it took us a lot of private money to
clean up the list. To prevent further attempts at sabotage the Petition was
closed out in late 1990’s. Another such document named The Manhattan
Declaration lists some 720 scientists, including 120 pure climatologists, and states
the same. We note that the name of that gigantic scam was changed to “Climate
Change” – after 20 consecutive years of global cooling. Former Vice-President
Al “Jazeera” Gore, another low IQ bloviating gasbag, has ridden that “global
warming” horse to a personal wealth estimated to reach a billion dollars, while
being entertained by elegant and expensive hookers in luxury hotel suites. And
now that Marxist Pope from Argentina has joined his voice to that world-wide
criminal conspiracy.
Excellent summary. The only wingnut you forgot to mention is Obama’s science adviser, “Dr.” John Holdren. He was part of the global cooling doomsday crowd back in the ’70’s and is currently one of the handlers brainwashing POTUS with nonsense scientific fraud: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/obamas-current-science-advisor-warned-in-the-1970s-of-a-new-ice-age-and-is-open-to-shooting-soot-into-the-upper-atmosphere.html
You unable to show a single solitary scrap of fraud, BTW.
Best,
D
Here are a few scraps: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
Booker’s newspaper column full of speculation and innuendo has not resulted in a single scrap of evidence since it was published.
Best,
D
I disagree. It is neither speculation or innuendo, here is the evidence: https://www.masterresource.org/site/uploads/2010/04/surface_temp.pdf
The not a climate & never published a climate paper guy and the Heritage guy, unpublished paper. Aren’t you precious?
Best,
D
I’m sorry, your reply was grammatically garbled and tapered off with an ad hominem attack. Can you please clarify?
Another con who can’t use ad hom properly. It’s a plague, I tell you.
That paper, from a fossil fuel-funded think tank and written by two employees of fossil fuel-funded think tanks and never published in the scholarly literature?
The last thing it would be is credible. LoWatts couldn’t even get his SurfaceStations project published, despite promising a blockbuster.
ouch.
Best,
D
Here is a bonanza of peer reviewed papers on the topic: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You’ll see Dano there from many years ago, laughing at PopTart. Many people laughed at poor hapless PopTart and his extended comedy skit.
Your comedy is a little repetitive, and the skit doesn’t stay on point. Re-write.
Best,
D
Poor Dano, only Alarmists try to dismiss the list which has now been cited multiple times in the peer-reviewed literature.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/11/the-impact-of-popular-technologynet.html#Journal
Hand-waving away the papers does not make them disappear.
Dano has not published anything but hot air.
Still attempting to smooth over that very public pratfall? I’d try to hide that embarrassment too.
Best,
D
Anyone intellectually honest can see that no-one believes your misinformation. Popular Technology.net just keeps getting cited more and more and more.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/11/the-impact-of-popular-technologynet.html
You have never published. Aren’t you worthless?
Best,
T