Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IPCC:

    "We want control over what we know we can control so we can control what we don't know anything about because it's important we control it! Give us money and power and the problem will be solved!"

    There's the executive summary of their report...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      IPCC:

      "We want control over what we know we can control so we can control what we don't know anything about because it's important we control it! Give us money and power and the problem will be solved!"

      There's the executive summary of their report...
      The opposition position is equally undesirable as it comes across as we know nothing so there is no point in planning.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • In post #300 of this thread I provided a link to a website loaded with links to articles and papers dealing with "climate change", etc. Following is an excerpt from one of those articles linked to;
        ...
        Leaving aside the issue that science is never about belief, all such questions are actually coded ones, being understood by the public to mean “is dangerous global warming being caused by human-related emissions of carbon dioxide”. Needless to say, this is a different, albeit related, question. These and other sloppy ambiguities (“carbon” for “carbon dioxide”, for example) are in daily use in the media, and they lead to great confusion in the public discussion about climate change; they also undermine the value of nearly all opinion poll results.

        The DAGW hypothesis that I want to test here is precisely and only “that dangerous global warming is being caused, or will be, by human-related carbon dioxide emissions”. To be “dangerous”, at a minimum the change must exceed the magnitude or rate of warmings that are known to be associated with normal weather and climatic variability.

        What evidence can we use to test the DAGW hypothesis?


        Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the DAGW hypothesis. Here I have space to present just five, all of which are based upon real world empirical data. For more information, please read both Dr. Hayhoe’s and my book.

        Consider the following tests:

        (i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.

        Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.

        (ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4O C and 0.7O C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1O C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5O C/century.

        In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.

        (iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.

        In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.

        (iv) The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0O C/century.

        In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.

        (v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.

        Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.
        ...
        http://www.aitse.org/global-warming-...ogenic-or-not/

        More can be found at;
        Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions - Global Warming
        http://wiseenergy.org/global-warming/

        And many other related subjects covered at AWED thru their home page;
        http://wiseenergy.org/
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

        Comment


        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          The opposition position is equally undesirable as it comes across as we know nothing so there is no point in planning.
          Planning for what?
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            The opposition position is equally undesirable as it comes across as we know nothing so there is no point in planning.
            Planning for what? Forcing solar and wind down a nation's throat will only result in a huge gap between rich and poor as energy becomes unaffordable.

            Forcing public transit and battery cars on the population is another way to keep down the unwashed masses by controlling and limiting their ability to move around.

            The whole Gorebal Warming agenda proposed by groups like the IPCC ensure economic decline, social stratification, limiting social mobility, and reducing people's freedom in general.

            If that's the planning the Progressive Left and Gorebal Warming advocates are pushing then I want no part of it. No plan is better than that plan.

            Comment


            • I don't see the CO2 is evil crowd wanting to force airlines not to produce these:

              http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/je...t-climate/619/

              Here's another potential source ignored:

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm

              How many other potential or recognized sources of climate change are there? The science on this is anything but "settled" except in the minds of plutocrats and the intelligencia wanting control over everyone's life.

              Comment


              • Try 10% Science and 90% Political (marxist~socialist~statist) Agenda;

                EXCERPT:
                ....
                Climate skeptics are right, Klein cheerily concludes: the Left is using climate change to advance policies they have long wanted. "In short," says Klein, "climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative."

                As such, global warming is our most wicked problem. The end of our world is heralded by ideologues with specific solutions already in mind: de-growth, rural living, low-energy consumption, and renewable energies that will supposedly harmonize us with Nature. The response from the Right was all-too predictable. If climate change "supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand," as conservatives decided long ago, then climate change is either not happening or is not much to worry about.

                Wicked problems can only be solved if the ideological discourses that give rise to them are disrupted, and that's what political scientist Foreman does brilliantly in "On Justice Movements." If climate justice activists truly cared about poverty and climate change, Foreman notes, they would advocate things like better cook stoves and helping poor nations accelerate the transition from dirtier to cleaner fuels. Instead they make demands that range from the preposterous (eg, de-growth) to the picayune (eg, organic farming).

                Once upon a time, social justice was synonymous with equal access to modern amenities — electric lighting so poor children could read at night, refrigerators so milk could be kept on hand, and washing machines to save the hands and backs of women. Malthus was rightly denounced by generations of socialists as a cruel aristocrat who cloaked his elitism in pseudo-science, and claimed that Nature couldn't possibly feed any more hungry months.
                ...
                It’s Not About The Climate

                Bait and switch ...
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                Comment


                • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Here's another potential source ignored:

                  http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm

                  How many other potential or recognized sources of climate change are there? The science on this is anything but "settled" except in the minds of plutocrats and the intelligencia wanting control over everyone's life.
                  Er...

                  Your site refutes The Doc's position. Really it does. You really need to read your links before posting them.

                  The view that there is a New World Order out there is a tad silly.
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    The AAPG's position statement clearly and politely disagrees with the so-called consensus. While there are no recent surveys of AAPG members, 65% of 2004 poll respondents supported the earlier, less polite, position statement...

                    That's over a decade ago. Hardly relevant on a science thread.
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      That's over a decade ago. Hardly relevant on a science thread.
                      In 2004, 65% of AAPG geoscientists supported the society's previous, less polite, statement rejecting the so-called consensus.

                      In 2008, 64% of APEGA geoscientists rejected the so-called consensus...



                      in 2012-2014, 47% of AMS members (including 55% of the meteorologists and atmospheric scientists) rejected the so-called consensus...



                      And only 0.5% of recent peer-reviewed climate publications endorsed the so-called consensus...



                      From 2008-2014, support of the so-called consensus has collapsed...

                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • 2008 is not even so last year.

                        7 years ago I didn't even have my twins.

                        Please post relevant and up to date.
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                          2008 is not even so last year.

                          7 years ago I didn't even have my twins.

                          Please post relevant and up to date.
                          The AMS survey is from 2012-2014.

                          No surveys of relevant scientists have ever demonstrated broad support of the so-called consensus that humans were the primary cause of recent climate changes.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Sure Doc scientist don't like 90 percent politics and 10 percent science.

                            If you ask the question should more research be done you would probably get a near 100 percent agreement. If you ask the question does co2 cause warming again you would get a highly positive response. If you ask the question is it a serious problem then the percentages will go way down.

                            People like me without a political agenda cannot honestly say if it is a significant problem or not but I would agree with you that it looks like we live on a co2 starved planet. Science always has more questions than answers nothing new there. For my answer I turn to history and conclude that natural changes are an immediate problem and forecasting should be improved. One of the components of that forecast should be Anthropogenic co2 and all the controversy does is get in the way of the answers.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • Global cooling in the 70s, global warming in the earlier 2000s, and now climate change?

                              All very clever names for the phenomenon known as 'weather'
                              “Come and take it!"

                              Comment


                              • SUN COOLS...

                                THREATENS 'LITTLE ICE AGE'...

                                Light, warmth nosediving to levels 'not seen for centuries'...
                                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X