The Global Warming Scam Is Being Exposed

[Aldebaran]

The cooling seen in the middle of the 20th century is largely thought to be due to human-caused pollution, mostly sulfate aerosols.

And then we were starting to warm up, so we needed to talk about global warming. Now it's cooling down, so we talk about "climate change". Are we the ones causing all this warming and cooling over such short periods of time? Are we that much more of an influence on the earth than even the sun, which goes through natural cycles of its own, causing earth changes--including the ones that caused/ended the ice age without human intervention?

 

[hurste1951]

The earth has warmed since the middle of the 19th century. This is incontrovertible. This does not mean it will NEVER get extremely cold in areas. The science is actually done on gridded averages differenced from a baseline in the form of an "anomaly".

This is what the climate scientists are talking about when they mention global warming. It does not mean (nor does anyone actually think it will entail) that regions won't have extremes of weather on occasion. This is the nature of data. If you see a regression line a set of data that is a perfect fit with no variance then you are probably not looking at real data.

 

[hurste1951]

And then we were starting to warm up, so we needed to talk about global warming. Now it's cooling down, so we talk about "climate change".

No. Climate change is a good term since it can result in changes (both warming and cooling) as the overall global average temperature increases.

As an example, there is evidence in the earth's history that the "Gulf Stream" (THe North Atlantic Thermohaline Current) has re-organized or shut down. One of the things that may have the ability to shut it down is an influx of cooler fresh water which will change the density. As the global temperature increases the ice sheets on Greenland are starting to melt putting more fresh water into the North Atlantic. IF this were to change or shut down the Thermohaline Current it would make Western Europe VERY MUCH COLDER THAN IT CURRENTLY IS. All while the global average is increasing (I am presuming you understand how the Gulf Stream keeps Western Europe warmer than its latitude would normally see).

Are we the ones causing all this warming and cooling over such short periods of time?

No. If you read the climate literature you will see there area number of known NATURAL cycles which affect things. This is something that is clearly laid out in the IPCC and has been from the beginning.

Are we that much more of an influence on the earth than even the sun, which goes through natural cycles of its own, causing earth changes--including the ones that caused/ended the ice age without human intervention?

Right now we apparently are. The sun's cycles cannot account for the bulk of the warming we've seen over the last 60 or so years. It has been factored into the analysis of the data and found to be insufficient to explain the warming.

It shouldn't be too confusing to understand that humans have put billions of tons of excess CO2 in the atmosphere above and beyond natural carbon fluxes. And CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. These two points are incontrovertible.

 

[Aldebaran]

It shouldn't be too confusing to understand that humans have put billions of tons of excess CO2 in the atmosphere above and beyond natural carbon fluxes. And CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. These two points are incontrovertible.

Sure, and it's also been classified as a pollutant by our government in order to regulate it. That would make you and I as human beings polluters as well since we exhale it. But what about the plant life we depend on? They intake CO2 in order to live. Imagine that; plants need "pollutants" in order to live.

 

[hurste1951]

The "conclusion" of the "big-league climatologists" from government stated with "great authority" conclusions of climatic and ecological EVENTS BY THE YEAR 2000.

Again this is from 1986.

Where is accountability for statements made about dire events to come upon earth?

If someone were to ask you to evacuate your home because a volcano near your home was showing troubling signs of imminent eruption, but then the volcano failed to erupt "on schedule", would you sue the person or imprison them? What if the volcano erupted 3 weeks later than the original prediction?

It has been and still is an agenda. These enormous statements at some point become fraud if not true. Well, we have entered those days.

I would then suggest you take up a collection so you can sue weathermen if a predicted rain fails to materialize. And then you can sue doctors who diagnose terminal cancers in which the person has 6 months to live but they live 2 years instead.

Subtract out the natural events controlling weather and climate before stating CO2 has made an effect.

And no one is doing that. In fact if you were to read the IPCC reports you'll see that they repeatedly reference the role of natural forcings. They have since the very first IPCC report. Even Hansen in the late 1980's explicitly mentioned natural factors and compared their effect to things like CO2 and other human factors.

Once again, zero reality and real world evidence about many CAGW predictions that were to come about by this point in time. They have become empty catastrophic predictions.

Actually the earth IS changing due to the warming. Sea levels ARE rising. Glaciers ARE melting. Weather patterns are changing. Ecosystems ARE being negatively impacted. Permafrost IS melting.

Just because thousands aren't (yet) dying from the effects doesn't make the science and the changes any less real.

 

[hurste1951]

Sure, and it's also been classified as a pollutant by our government in order to regulate it.

OF COURSE it has! Our reliance on fossil fuels and our inability to control our hunger for wasting power means we are damaging our environment. Just like lead in leaded gasoline, if it is doing damage to us, then government regulation across the board is a good way to make changes that the market can't possibly respond to in a timely manner.

That would make you and I as human beings polluters as well since we exhale it.

That isn't how this all works. That's a silly and childish view. The point of regulating it is to control emissions we can control.

But what about the plant life we depend on? They intake CO2 in order to live. Imagine that; plants need "pollutants" in order to live.

Again it is important to understand natural cycles versus what we are doing. Natural sinks exist for CO2, but excess CO2 which doesn't NEED to be out there in the atmosphere flood the sinks (plants, oceans,etc.) And excess CO2 is what is the problem. There has to be some greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere or we would be much colder (even if we had an oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere, these gases won't trap IR at the surface sufficiently and we'd have a surface temperature of about the same as our black body temperature which is about 32degC lower than the average earth surface temp.

 

[Aldebaran]

Actually the earth IS changing due to the warming. Sea levels ARE rising. Glaciers ARE melting. Weather patterns are changing. Ecosystems ARE being negatively impacted. Permafrost IS melting.

Glaciers are also reforming at very fast rates, weather patterns are changing in ways that are making temperatures drop to new record lows.

Right now where I live, the temperatures are 20 degrees below normal during the daytime and the forecast shows it to stay that way for at least the next week, maybe even 2 weeks. Just north of me, they've already gotten over 2 feet of snow. Normally, we hardly have any snow. Last winter was a brutal one, and this past summer, we had exactly 1 day where the temperature hit 90 degrees here. We normally have around 7 or 8 at or above 90.

Obama shutting down our coal fired power plants isn't going to help keep us very warm if this continues, ya know.

 

[Heissonear]

Again this is from 1986.



If someone were to ask you to evacuate your home because a volcano near your home was showing troubling signs of imminent eruption, but then the volcano failed to erupt "on schedule", would you sue the person or imprison them? What if the volcano erupted 3 weeks later than the original prediction?



I would then suggest you take up a collection so you can sue weathermen if a predicted rain fails to materialize. And then you can sue doctors who diagnose terminal cancers in which the person has 6 months to live but they live 2 years instead.



And no one is doing that. In fact if you were to read the IPCC reports you'll see that they repeatedly reference the role of natural forcings. They have since the very first IPCC report. Even Hansen in the late 1980's explicitly mentioned natural factors and compared their effect to things like CO2 and other human factors.



Actually the earth IS changing due to the warming. Sea levels ARE rising. Glaciers ARE melting. Weather patterns are changing. Ecosystems ARE being negatively impacted. Permafrost IS melting.

Just because thousands aren't (yet) dying from the effects doesn't make the science and the changes any less real.

Please read post 1.

The focus of this thread is TO EXPOSE THE ERROR AND FRAUD IN CAGW ALARMISM.

This is about exposing the Alarmists and their false statements as information come about real time.

This thread is not about DEFENDING CO2 INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING.

Those who make post after post to defend that Global Warming is real need to make their own thread about their view of CAGW.

If those who continue to post and defend CAGW then they are intensionally trying to steer the focus of this thread to what they want it to be about. Those who do that are then trolls. No trolls are allowed to practice their objective to change the focus and intention of this thread.

This thread is the posting of links and other information as they come about over the months to come ABOUT THE CAGW SCAM.

 

[hurste1951]

Glaciers are also reforming at very fast rates, weather patterns are changing in ways that are making temperatures drop to new record lows.

Parts of the HImalaya are seeing increased snowfall because of warming and increased evaporation over the Mediterranean (prevailing weather patterns carries that moisture eastward toward the Himalayas.)

Again, further evidence of global warming.

Obama shutting down our coal fired power plants isn't going to help keep us very warm if this continues, ya know.

What does that have to do with global warming? Other than showing us the challenges which will only get worse the longer we put off the necessary changes.

Coal is plentiful and cheap in the US so why would the market respond by limiting our use of it? We know what happens when we burn coal...it makes CO2 along with a bunch of other stuff.

This is why CO2 needs to be regulated so it keeps the playing field level. Right now fossil fuels are both unstainable and environmentally damaging. And worst of all...they have a really good "EROI" (Energy Return on Investment) making them among the cheapest fuel sources available. The market can't address this.

 

[Aldebaran]

OF COURSE it has! Our reliance on fossil fuels and our inability to control our hunger for wasting power means we are damaging our environment. Just like lead in leaded gasoline, if it is doing damage to us, then government regulation across the board is a good way to make changes that the market can't possibly respond to in a timely manner.

Don't you think the United States has done enough already? Look at the skies over our cities. Are they polluted like they are in China? I agree that we should keep the air clean and not do things wastefully, but at some point, you get diminishing returns and you get more damage than good.

That isn't how this all works. That's a silly and childish view. The point of regulating it is to control emissions we can control.

Well, the government is getting good at finding ways of controlling people. Taxes are one way. Some pretty silly and childish proposals have been made and it's only a matter of time before they go from silly to reality.

Again it is important to understand natural cycles versus what we are doing. Natural sinks exist for CO2, but excess CO2 which doesn't NEED to be out there in the atmosphere flood the sinks (plants, oceans,etc.) And excess CO2 is what is the problem. There has to be some greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere or we would be much colder (even if we had an oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere, these gases won't trap IR at the surface sufficiently and we'd have a surface temperature of about the same as our black body temperature which is about 32degC lower than the average earth surface temp.

Alright, so what ended the ice age? What caused global warming then? There were no factories, cars, or aerosol cans.

 

[Heissonear]

The earth has warmed since the middle of the 19th century. This is incontrovertible. This does not mean it will NEVER get extremely cold in areas. The science is actually done on gridded averages differenced from a baseline in the form of an "anomaly".

This is what the climate scientists are talking about when they mention global warming. It does not mean (nor does anyone actually think it will entail) that regions won't have extremes of weather on occasion. This is the nature of data. If you see a regression line a set of data that is a perfect fit with no variance then you are probably not looking at real data.

This thread is not a debate about if AGW is real.

Anyone who trys to turn the focus of this thread to their purpose of supporting CO2 induced Global Warming is a troll.

No trolls allowed on this thread.

 

[hurste1951]

Please read post 1.

This is a public forum so all your points that can be rebutted or addressed I will make an effort to rebut or address if only so that readers can see both sides of the discussion.

The focus of this thread is TO EXPOSE THE ERROR AND FRAUD IN CAGW ALARMISM.

And when you find an error and fraud that is a real problem for CAGW then that will be very good. Until then your claims of "fraud" can be debunked or at least shown in fullness.

That is the difficulty with "truth". It is seldom provided by the loud strident voice who wishes to silence everyone else.

This thread is not about DEFENDING CO2 INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING.

Perhaps you misunderstand how forums work. If you make a claim that is factually questionable it will do no one any good to let it stand.

If you were to make a factually incorrect claim it would actually be worse if no one were to come on to provide the counterpoint.

Those who make post after post to defend that Global Warming is real need to make their own thread about their view of CAGW.

No, you need to start a BLOG and shut off "Comments".

If those who continue to post and defend CAGW then they are intensionally trying to steer the focus of this thread to what they want it to be about.

I want it to be about TRUTH. What do you want it to be about? Can your comments not stand up to scrutiny?

 

[hurste1951]

Anyone who trys to turn the focus of this thread to their purpose of supporting CO2 induced Global Warming is a troll.

That is not the definition of "Troll". Even by the Forum Rules.

No trolls allowed on this thread.

So anyone who questions you is a "troll"?

 

[Aldebaran]

Parts of the HImalaya are seeing increased snowfall because of warming and increased evaporation over the Mediterranean (prevailing weather patterns carries that moisture eastward toward the Himalayas.)

Again, further evidence of global warming.

This is total nonsense! It gets warmer, and it's global warming. It's gets colder and it's global warming. It's snows more and it's global warming.

Coal is plentiful and cheap in the US so why would the market respond by limiting our use of it? We know what happens when we burn coal...it makes CO2 along with a bunch of other stuff.

I never said the market would do it. I said the efforts already in place to clean up the emissions have already done enough.

This is why CO2 needs to be regulated so it keeps the playing field level. Right now fossil fuels are both unstainable and environmentally damaging. And worst of all...they have a really good "EROI" (Energy Return on Investment) making them among the cheapest fuel sources available. The market can't address this.

More nonsense!

 

[Heissonear]

And then we were starting to warm up, so we needed to talk about global warming. Now it's cooling down, so we talk about "climate change". Are we the ones causing all this warming and cooling over such short periods of time? Are we that much more of an influence on the earth than even the sun, which goes through natural cycles of its own, causing earth changes--including the ones that caused/ended the ice age without human intervention?

What you stated above is absolutely true.

However, after a few debate replies to those opposing your clear information may start to "be a troll" on this thread.

To prevent trolls please don't let them bait you into too many posts so we have freedom to over the months to come to present the error of AGW as the information comes in real time. Thanks for your efforts!

 

[Heissonear]

That is not the definition of "Troll". Even by the Forum Rules.



So anyone who questions you is a "troll"?

Anyone who tries to turn the focus of this thread to their direction of intent is a troll.

In this thread the focus is clearly on presenting information that exposes the scam of Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming in real time, as information continues to come forth.

Go make your own thread to defend CAGW. Clear?

 

[hurste1951]

This is total nonsense! It gets warmer, and it's global warming. It's gets colder and it's global warming. It's snows more and it's global warming.

It isn't nonsense. You can easily check it out for yourself. Sorry I cannot yet post links. And remember: global warming is driving climate CHANGE. And also it should be noted that more snow doesn't necessarily mean COLDER, it could just mean more water vapor in the atmosphere.

It is quite useful to understand the topic at a technical level rather than just by one's "gut feeling". Climate science requires this as well.

I never said the market would do it. I said the efforts already in place to clean up the emissions have already done enough.

No, they haven't done enough.

More nonsense!

Really? What part was nonsense? The EROI of fossil fuels like coal and oil is very high and the relative cost is quite low compared to less efficient, newer energy sources. This is just basic economics. The EROI (actually "EROEI") on coal is about 6 times higher than nuclear, EROI on domestic oil is probably about 2X higher. And to make matters more difficult so much of our infrastructure is set up to run on fossil fuels. Obviously our electric grid can be more adaptable but transportation will be fossil fuels for a while.

 

[hurste1951]

Anyone who tries to turn the focus of this thread to their direction of intent is a troll.

I want to keep the focus of the thread on EXACTLY what you are posting on it. That is of utmost importance to me.

In this thread the focus is clearly on presenting information that exposes the scam of Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming in real time, as information continues to come forth.

Go make your own thread to defend CAGW. Clear?

My apologies but you seem to feel that your points cannot be spoken against or countered and yet here you are posting on a public forum.

I WANT to talk about YOUR POINTS. Your points specifically are VERY IMPORTANT to me. I have no desire whatsoever to divert the thread from the discussion of the CAGW exposure. I am just helping you to zero in on legitimate complaints about CAGW.

I am hopeful you can take my input and pare out those "exposures" you find that are not as clear-cut as just one side can present.

I want LEGITIMATE complaints about CAGW as much as anyone! So I'm VERY MUCH IN FAVOR of this thread and want to help it be better.

Truth can only be served when all sides are presented.

 

[Aldebaran]

It isn't nonsense. You can easily check it out for yourself. Sorry I cannot yet post links. And remember: global warming is driving climate CHANGE. And also it should be noted that more snow doesn't necessarily mean COLDER, it could just mean more water vapor in the atmosphere.

So first it's CO2 that causes global warming, then it causes climate change. Now you say global warming is driving climate change. None of this proves that it's humans doing either one.

It is quite useful to understand the topic at a technical level rather than just by one's "gut feeling". Climate science requires this as well.

Sure, as long as the only evidence is what is put out by those who have something to gain by putting it out. Politicians eat this stuff up!

No, they haven't done enough.

Right. It won't be until they are closed down permanently that you'll think they've done enough. Clean air isn't enough, I guess.

Really? What part was nonsense? The EROI of fossil fuels like coal and oil is very high and the relative cost is quite low compared to less efficient, newer energy sources. This is just basic economics. The EROI (actually "EROEI") on coal is about 6 times higher than nuclear, EROI on domestic oil is probably about 2X higher. And to make matters more difficult so much of our infrastructure is set up to run on fossil fuels. Obviously our electric grid can be more adaptable but transportation will be fossil fuels for a while.

Good! The marketplace uses what works. Government regulations take away the freedom of the marketplace to operate as it should, and it's people like you and me that are most affected. Ever hear of Solyndra? There's a reason that didn't work out. Same goes for the Chevy Volt. Government tried to manipulate the system for its own agenda--and failed miserably.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Glaciers are also reforming at very fast rates, weather patterns are changing in ways that are making temperatures drop to new record lows.

Right now where I live, the temperatures are 20 degrees below normal during the daytime and the forecast shows it to stay that way for at least the next week, maybe even 2 weeks. Just north of me, they've already gotten over 2 feet of snow. Normally, we hardly have any snow. Last winter was a brutal one, and this past summer, we had exactly 1 day where the temperature hit 90 degrees here. We normally have around 7 or 8 at or above 90.

Obama shutting down our coal fired power plants isn't going to help keep us very warm if this continues, ya know.

It could be -30 C for 10 months straight in Wisconsin and the average temperature of the earth could still increase.

Global warming doesn't mean a uniform increase globally. It means an average increase globally.

That's how averages work. If its 20 degrees below 'normal' in Madison, Wisconsin for two straight weeks. It could be 1 degree above 'normal' in 20 other cities around the world which would offset the 20 degrees below normal in Madison. But there won't be any news stories about the 1 degree above normal in those 20 cities, there will only be the news stories about the "cold snap" in the midwest.