« prev   random   next »

4
2

Global Warming Fraud Exposed

By Onvacation following x   2018 Apr 6, 8:57am 1,806 views   34 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.
1   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 6, 11:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I've shared some of his videos in my threads. It is so blatant that we have to get the word out.
2   Automan Empire   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 6, 12:16pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

How seriously are we expected to take an article that cites blogs and Breitbart as sources? I followed the link, they are making their case based on temperatures from two specific years, most likely cherry-picked.
3   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 6, 1:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

Automan Empire says
How seriously are we expected to take an article that cites blogs and Breitbart as sources?

How seriously are we expected to take a government agency that intentionally manipulates historical temperature data to promote an agenda?
Automan Empire says
most likely cherry-picked.

Evidence will be debated. Lazy speculation will be disregarded.
4   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 6, 1:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I guess it is time to inform the readership yet again that the greenhouse effect cannot be explained away by posting propaganda.

Higher concentration of CO2 leads to higher AVERAGE temperature across all land, water/ice and air. It cannot be propagandized away.
5   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 6, 2:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

justme says

Higher concentration of CO2 leads to higher AVERAGE temperature across all land, water/ice and air.

Understand that telling the big lie over and over does not make it true.
If our ever increasing co2 really did cause ever increasing heat, 2017 would have been the hottest year in "history". Instead the alarmists are trying to explain the record cold and snowfall this year as being caused by global warming climate change.
6   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 6, 2:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Global Warming Gets Cold Shoulder!
7   HEYYOU   ignore (17)   2018 Apr 6, 5:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

"NASA's data for the two most recent years for which data are available (2016/2017) show a warming of 0.95°C when using a baseline of 1951-1980 and a warming of 1.23°C when using a baseline of 1890-1910 (left map on image below). In other words, using this earlier baseline results in an additional 0.28°C rise. When using an even earlier baseline, i.e. 1750 or preindustrial, it could be 1.53°C warmer, as discussed in an earlier post."

"There's more! As a recent publication points out, most methods that calculate the global temperature use sea surface temperatures. However, doesn't it make more sense to calculate the temperature of the air just above the sea surface? Measuring air temperature at the surface is done in the case of temperatures over land, where one doesn't measure the temperature of the soil or rocks when telling people how warm it is. Since air surface temperatures are slightly higher than sea surface temperatures, the result of looking at air surface temperatures across the globe would be a temperature that is approximately 0.1°C warmer. Furthermore, many areas in the Arctic may not have been adequately reflected in the global temperature, e.g. because insufficient data were available. Since the Arctic has been warming much faster than the rest of the world, inclusion of those areas would add another 0.1°C to the rise. Adding this to the above 1.53°C rise makes that it's already 1.73°C (or 3.11°F) warmer than preindustrial."

"... it's already 1.73°C (or 3.11°F) warmer than preindustrial."

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-much-warmer-is-it-now.html
8   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 6, 6:37pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

HEYYOU says
There's more!

Then where are all the predicted flooding, disapearing islands, melting polar caps, wetbulb deaths, and general mayhem that the alarmists predicted? Do we have to wait a decade like that mcpherson guy says? Or will it take until the end of the century like the latest ipcc predictions?

Many younger people have been brainwashed by the CAGW fraud. It makes them easier to control.
9   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 7, 8:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

HEYYOU says
"... it's already 1.73°C (or 3.11°F) warmer than preindustrial."

Translation:
If you start at the end of the little ice age and make adjustments for the lack of thermometers by making the baseline even colder than it was we have calculated that the average temperature over the entire world has gone up almost 2 degrees.
10   Tim Aurora   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 7, 8:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The article refers another article which refers another study which seems to have taken many assumption and the values which seem to be very dubious. It is an example of fitting the data to prove a predetermined result
11   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 7, 9:04am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

GW is bullshit scam to sell more solar panels by rich Democrats. And to sell carbon credits squeezing out competition.

Everything else is a lie.
12   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 7, 9:17am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Tim Aurora says
. It is an example of fitting the data to prove a predetermined result

So the temperature has not gone up 2 degrees?
13   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 7, 9:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
So the temperature has not gone up 2 degrees?


No, it actually has not.
14   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 7, 10:17am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

The fraud isn't the idea that CO2 and other human driven activity can raise temps.

The fraud is that they know what the relationship is, that we have a deep understanding of all the factors, and that suddenly it's going to go parabolic. In reality, it's gone up very little and it may be a case of diminishing returns... that it may take substantially larger CO2 inputs to successively increase temperature. In other words, 200ppm CO2 for 2 degrees to 400ppm overall. But it might take 400 more ppm CO2 to 800ppm CO2 overall go up another degree or two.

Every model assumes the temperature rises higher with the same or little added CO2. The models are statistical "magic" and there's no way the Forcing and Feedback mechanisms are that well understood, AND understood in relationship to each other.

The models have been consistently wayyy off. Catastrophic Global Warming advocates are now saying "Our Models are better this time", but it's not the computing power, or the algo, is the relationship between all the factors (Ocean Currents, Solar Radiation, Cloud Cover, etc.) that is the problem.
15   rocketjoe79   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 7, 10:55am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Follow the money: Check Al Gore's net worth before an after he became a global warming shill for George Soros. I don't have a problem with people making money, but Gore is a pure paid alarmist. We were supposed to have no arctic ice back in 2007 according to the Goracle.
16   Call It Crazy   ignore (3)   2018 Apr 10, 1:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

rocketjoe79 says
Al Gore's net worth

WIKI
1981 Presidency of Ronald Reagan, global warming became a political issue, with immediate plans to cut spending on environmental research, particularly climate related, and stop funding for CO2 monitoring. Reagan appointed as Secretary of Energy James B. Edwards, who said that there was no real global warming problem. Congressman Al Gore had studied under Revelle and was aware of the developing science: he joined others in arranging congressional hearings from 1981 onwards, with testimony by scientists including Revelle, Stephen Schneider and Wallace Smith Broecker. The hearings gained enough public attention to reduce the cuts in atmospheric research.[66] A polarized party-political debate developed. In 1982 Sherwood B. Idso published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? which said increases in CO2 would not warm the planet, but would fertilize crops and were "something to be encouraged and not suppressed", while complaining that his theories had been rejected by the "scientific establishment". An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report in 1983 said global warming was "not a theoretical problem but a threat whose effects will be felt within a few years", with potentially "catastrophic" consequences.[67] The Reagan administration reacted by calling the report "alarmist", and the dispute got wide news coverage. Public attention turned to other issues, then the 1985 finding of a polar ozone hole brought a swift international response. To the public, this was related to climate change and the possibility of effective action, but news interest faded.[68]

Public attention was renewed amidst summer droughts and heat waves when James Hansen testified to a Congressional hearing on 23 June 1988,[69] stating with high confidence that long term warming was under way with severe warming likely within the next 50 years, and warning of likely storms and floods. There was increasing media attention: the scientific community had reached a broad consensus that the climate was warming, human activity was very likely the primary cause, and there would be significant consequences if the warming trend was not curbed.[70] These facts encouraged discussion about new laws concerning environmental regulation, which was opposed by the fossil fuel industry.[71]

From 1989 onwards industry funded organisations including the Global Climate Coalition and the George C. Marshall Institute sought to spread doubt among the public, in a strategy already developed by the tobacco industry.[72][73][74] A small group of scientists opposed to the consensus on global warming became politically involved, and with support from conservative political interests, began publishing in books and the press rather than in scientific journals.[75] This small group of scientists included some of the same people that were part of the strategy already tried by the tobacco industry.[76] Spencer Weart identifies this period as the point where legitimate skepticism about basic aspects of climate science was no longer justified, and those spreading mistrust about these issues became deniers.[77] As their arguments were increasingly refuted by the scientific community and new data, deniers turned to political arguments, making personal attacks on the reputation of scientists, and promoting ideas of a global warming conspiracy.[78]

With the 1989 fall of communism and the environmental movement's international reach at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the attention of U.S. conservative think tanks, which had been organised in the 1970s as an intellectual counter-movement to socialism, turned from the "red scare" to the "green scare" which they saw as a threat to their aims of private property, free trade market economies and global capitalism. As a counter-movement, they used environmental skepticism to promote denial of the reality of problems such as loss of biodiversity and climate change.[79]

In 1992, an EPA report linked second-hand smoke with lung cancer. The tobacco industry engaged the APCO Worldwide public relations company, which set out a strategy of astroturfing campaigns to cast doubt on the science by linking smoking anxieties with other issues, including global warming, in order to turn public opinion against calls for government intervention. The campaign depicted public concerns as "unfounded fears" supposedly based only on "junk science" in contrast to their "sound science", and operated through front groups, primarily the Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC) and its Junk Science website, run by Steven Milloy. A tobacco company memo commented "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." During the 1990s, the tobacco campaign died away, and TASSC began taking funding from oil companies including Exxon. Its website became central in distributing "almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the popular press.
17   Call It Crazy   ignore (3)   2018 Apr 10, 1:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
Evidence will be debated. Lazy speculation will be disregarded.

How much doubt in the existing scientific concensus can you buy for $900 million per year investment?

The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming.[12][13][14] In the public debate, phrases such as climate skepticism have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism.[15] The labels are contested: those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with common standards of scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, persistently deny the validity of human caused global warming.

There's about another billion dollars per year additionally invested in spreading GOP talking points on radio, Fox, Breitbart, Sinclair.
18   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 10, 1:46pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The average of 102 IPCC Climate Models overstated temperature increases by about 400%
19   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 10, 3:10pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Call It Crazy says
concensus

Ask a class of high schoolers how much the temp has gone up in the last century and you will get answers from "I have no idea" to "100 degrees!" Ask the same class what percentage of scientists believe in catastrophic manmade climate change and they will sing out in unison "97 percent! "

Propaganda only works on the ignorant.
20   PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 10, 8:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Call It Crazy says
Onvacation says
Evidence will be debated. Lazy speculation will be disregarded.

How much doubt in the existing scientific concensus can you buy for $900 million per year investment?

.


Consensus is the bread and butter of every extremist group. Name a dictator or despotic regime that doesn't rule by "consensus." Consensus is newspeak language used to describe the official narrative. And if you dare contradict that narrative you can expect ridicule or worse.
21   Call It Crazy   ignore (3)   2018 Apr 11, 12:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Not all consensus rises to the level of scientific consensus.

For example,

global warming denial is limited to the small group of scientists opposed to the consensus on global warming became politically involved, and with support from conservative political interests, began publishing in books and the press rather than in scientific journals.[75] This small group of scientists included some of the same people that were part of the strategy already tried by the tobacco industry.[76] Spencer Weart identifies this period as the point where legitimate skepticism about basic aspects of climate science was no longer justified.


This small group panders to funding and publishes pseudoscience limited to books and the press. "Scientific consensus" is derived from peer reviewed publication in scientific journals. --with this audience there is no argument on the subject.

So glad someone above pointed out the effect of ignorance. The ignorance goes hand in hand with the effect of vast funding from industries with agendas, but it is hopeless to bullshit people who have the habit of critical thinking and perhaps a well advanced education and place high value on truth.
22   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 11, 6:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Call It Crazy says
pseudoscience

Yep
Call It Crazy says
it is hopeless to bullshit people who have the habit of critical thinking and perhaps a well advanced education and place high value on truth.

So how much has the temperature risen in the last century?

Give the alarmism a break until the snow melts.
23   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 11, 6:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Call It Crazy says
concensus

Call It Crazy says
consensus

We are making progress!
24   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 11, 7:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The left does not care for truth. Obama told them, they follow blindly and call everyone else a racist/bigot/etc... who disagrees.
25   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 11, 7:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

well advanced education and place high value on truth.

Real science minded people would admit when the models were wrong and go back to the drawing board and investigate why the model's assumptions and mechanics were in error. Flashing "credentials" is no better than saying all those with a Doctor of Divinity cannot be wrong as an answer to someone who used common sense to question a Biblical account.
26   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 11, 9:18am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

HeadSet says
Real science minded people would admit when the models were wrong and go back to the drawing board and investigate why the model's assumptions and mechanics were in error. Flashing "credentials" is no better than saying all those with a Doctor of Divinity cannot be wrong as an answer to someone who used common sense to question a Biblical account.


I've said all along that alarmist behavior resembles religion. They know the answer ahead of time, and then they try to make the "science" fit.
27   Call It Crazy   ignore (3)   2018 Apr 11, 12:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
So how much has the temperature risen in the last century?

Give the alarmism a break until the snow melts.

The scientific consensus is not moved by rhetorical devices.

The subject of anthropomorphic global warming is already studied, published and is peer reviewed to the satisfaction of REAL ESTABLISHED EXPERTS.

Denial of anthropomorphic global warming is bought and paid for by those who have an interest in their short sighted MONETARY investments. EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN TOBACCO SMOKE AND DISEASE.

Say whatever pleases you.

Define yourself in whatever light you prefer.

Go ahead, be strong!
28   Call It Crazy   ignore (3)   2018 Apr 11, 12:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

FortWayne says
The left does not care for truth. Obama told them, they follow blindly and call everyone else a racist/bigot/etc... who disagrees.

THIS

This is a religion.

It looks like immeasurable butt-hurt.

The believer is impenetrable.
29   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 11, 1:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Global warming. Because previous models were off by 400%, and computer modelling has a crap record of success in just about every macro endeavor.

"According to the average of 100s of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models... we and 90% of all economists see blue skies for 2008 and beyond."
30   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 11, 1:45pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Call It Crazy says
The subject of anthropomorphic global warming is already studied

Onvacation says

So how much has the temperature risen in the last century?


Still waiting for an answer. I find it hard to debate people who have fallen for propaganda while ignoring facts.
31   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Apr 11, 3:01pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
The fraud isn't the idea that CO2 and other human driven activity can raise temps.

The fraud is that they know what the relationship is, that we have a deep understanding of all the factors, and that suddenly it's going to go parabolic. In reality, it's gone up very little and it may be a case of diminishing returns... that it may take substantially larger CO2 inputs to successively increase temperature.


You make a fair point, but the follow up question is just as important: We're heading into unknown territory, where we're relying on possibly dodgy prediction models.. or possibly accurate. Are you willing to roll the dice on that? It may be the more economically costly route in the short term, but honestly, gambling the future of the climate isn't worth it in the long run, and cleaning up this mess will absolutely become more costly the longer we wait. Industrial and population growth are sure as hell not going to help reverse the trend.

I get that this forum is clearly populated by a majority of right-leaning folks, but the environment is one issue where I'm consistently surprised that conservatives are so resistant to embrace. It's right there in your name, guys! Conserve!! LOL
32   Call It Crazy   ignore (3)   2018 Apr 11, 3:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Evan F. says
You make a fair point

Not at all, just citing some more talking points is not a point.

If it wasn't for all the money invested in sowing public doubt to protect the short term investments nobody would be talking about any of this.

It really is that simple.
33   TwoScoopsOfWompWomp   ignore (2)   2018 Apr 11, 3:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Evan F. says
You make a fair point, but the follow up question is just as important: We're heading into unknown territory, where we're relying on possibly dodgy prediction models.. or possibly accurate. Are you willing to roll the dice on that? It may be the more economically costly route in the short term, but honestly, gambling the future of the climate isn't worth it in the long run, and cleaning up this mess will absolutely become more costly the longer we wait. Industrial and population growth are sure as hell not going to help reverse the trend.


Yes, because historically humans have a crap track record of predicting impending doom. They either get gobsmacked by a problem they didn't even think was a problem, or they freak out about something and the opposite happens. For the latter, I offer two recent examples: Y2K (which would have been a nothing burger) and the "Superpredators" (where the murder rate actually collapsed rather than skyrocketed as predicted by countless Sociologists and Criminal Experts)

Some other reasons we won't have a Greenhouse Effect is because Melting Icecaps = more rock exposure on a huge chunk of the Northern Hemisphere and an entire Continent at the South Pole becoming ice-free = long term sequestration by tons of weathering rocks. Rock weathering sequestering CO2 is actually more of a factor than Ocean absorption.

But the way to prevent Greenhouse Gasses from going overboard is to restrict Human Population Growth. The easiest way to do this would be to cut off the poorest countries from all interaction with the outside world. The second thing would be to abandon cars, and not wait until the EV non-solution is common. Since adoption of EV would require us to increase electric generation to a huge degree, while shifting to renewable energy which is unreliable. For example, the Germans built something like 15% more wind turbines a year or so ago, but ended up with 3% less electric, simply because wind is unreliable and happened to be on the light side that year.

We could also build Thorium plants like crazy. But EV creates a shitton of pollution via the extremely energy-intensive process of collecting and refining rare-earth metals. The place they refine the stuff in China looks like Mordor, literally. Mountains of radioactive waste is a byproduct. Also the batteries don't last very long and are only marginally recyclable.
34   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 12, 8:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
But the way to prevent Greenhouse Gasses from going overboard is to restrict Human Population Growth. The easiest way to do this would be to cut off the poorest countries from all interaction with the outside world. The second thing would be to abandon cars, and not wait until the EV non-solution is common. Since adoption of EV would require us to increase electric generation to a huge degree, while shifting to renewable energy which is unreliable. For example, the Germans built something like 15% more wind turbines a year or so ago, but ended up with 3% less electric, simply because wind is unreliable and happened to be on the light side that year.

We could also build Thorium plants like crazy. But EV creates a shitton of pollution via the extremely energy-intensive process of collecting and refining rare-earth metals. The place they refine the stuff in China looks like Mordor, literally. Mountains of radioactive waste is a byproduct. Also the batteries don't las...


Jesus, this is why I say I am conservative leaning. Industry would never become cleaner with this mindset. First, man-made climate change is unproven, and man-made catastrophic short-term climate change has been disproved. Just qualifying my opinion.

Renewable energy is the future, period. EVs are the future, period.

Promoting either on the basis of avoiding climate change is retarded. An earlier post asks why conservatives aren't environmental. Well, this one, me, did put up solar and we are on our 5th EV lease.

EVs are a nonsolution to climate change, but they most definitely are a solution to air pollution. Increasing renewables enhances the solution because both sides, production and consumption of electricity become clean. Go test drive a Bolt, you will find it superior in almost every way to most gas cars. A bunch of premises in this post are very near sighted.

Claiming a decrease in wind production as a reason to abandon renewables seems like reaching. Maximizing wind, solar hydro reduces the need for coal and nuclear. Those plants are closing down daily. There is readily available photographic proof of cities in the 50s through the 90s and recent where the improvement is irrefutable. The reasons for criticizing renewables and EVs don't stand up to much scrutiny.

I would rather deal with solid waste than air pollution that kills many thousands from respiratory and other ailments.
EV batteries are made to last the life of the car. They come with a 100,000 mile warranty. They are only getting better. My first Leaf's battery went 85 miles on a charge. My Bolt goes over 220 miles verses a 2015 Leaf. That is a hell of an improvement. New uses are being found daily for solid waste. It came from the ground, it can certainly be put safely back into the ground.




The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions