Global Warming is a Scam

Status
Not open for further replies.

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
One of these days you are going to present some actual science, Heissonear, and astound everyone reading this thread :D!

Your imaginary CAGW does not exist. There is AGW. People concentrate on the CO2 emissions because they are the currently primary driver of climate. But we also affect the climate in other ways, e.g. deforestation.

Climate science is not settled. No science is ever settled :doh:!
What happens is that evidence is collected until the science about a situation is accepted as correct. The direct and indirect ignorance of climate science leads to unfounded denial of climate science from 20 February 2015 onward :eek: includes the science that AGW exists and that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists.
.

The information you present above is what you "bought in to". You took it within as "how it is". Including the mixture of propaganda within it.

You show to be a follower, and not an independent thinker. Instead you let "the crowd" mean something to you. This apparently started at a young age.

Once you feel the comfort that you are supported by many others you "present the facts and reality".

Confidence has been built within that "you are right".

Well so do all who are in the groupies of Jehovah Witnesses, Mormans, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es, Hindu, and the list goes on.

None like their foundation exposed. All are sensitive to truth that sets their error in place.

This explains why the "Climate Scam" and the radical over promotion of atmospheric CO2 GHG effects are not "recognized" by many.

Once indoctrinated what observations are made have to conform.

It's time to wake up. Yes, check your (bias) reality!

Until then follow the crowd and apply the elements of indoctrination to those who do not line up to errant science and scientists who STILL have no real world evidence to support their grand hypothesis pushed radically upon others.

Extension of past trends and periods of natural variability still EASILY explain weather and climate on earth. I've studied nature and it's variability all my life. So far what little effects CO2 at ~150 over "normal" shows little IF ANY effects, observation showing it being drowned by first order natural climate controlling factors at work for eons.

You are not going to set aside the factors that control climate's natural variability before someone like me. For you it has been a different case. I'm pointing at it.

.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
.
Extension of past trends and periods of natural variability still EASILY explain weather and climate on earth. I've studied nature and it's variability all my life. So far what little effects CO2 at ~150 over "normal" shows little IF ANY effects, observation showing it being drowned by first order natural climate controlling factors at work for eons.

You are not going to set aside the factors that control climate's natural variability before someone like me. For you it has been a different case. I'm pointing at it.

:boredsleep:

These long ideological anti-evidence claims bore me. The REAL climate experts have analysed all natural forcings and they DON'T explain today's warming. Please stop lying to yourself and others on this thread, and start researching some actual evidence.

So far what little effects CO2 at ~150 over "normal" shows little IF ANY effects
Wrong. The oceans are taking on an enormous amount of extra energy every single day, and when the ocean 'burps' this back out in a super El-Nino, it's going to crush Australia's agriculture. Not only that, but there are other more permanent changes coming as the climate sensitivity switches into a 'new normal' and natural feedbacks take over. The Stern Report and Garnaut Report both show climate prevention now being something like 20 times cheaper than trying to install 'climate cures' in the future.

Also, fossil fuels will peak, decline, become ever more expensive and eventually run out one day. Isn't it better to be ready?
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
.

Natural Variability.

Observations over time.

The earth is showing its natural swings in temperature .

Meanwhile , the Climate Warming Scam perpetual push to twists climate for gain.


1913 Low Min Records Broken in Last 7 Days (272 tied) according to the NOAA.

Below is a screenshot showing location and the biggest difference between old record and new record.

The list is just the ones I could capture in a screenshot. Wow. Many records broken by over 30F.

Imagine … the old record was 15F and it is now -23F. A 38F difference.

https://sunshinehours.wordpress.com...roken-272-tied-from-2015-02-19-to-2015-02-25/

Look at the map showing the distribution of the "records".

.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
.

It should be BOLDLY OBVIOUS that CAGW is rooted in Extremism.

The sky is falling. It's worst than we thought. It's unprecedented.

What a Climate Mess Environmental Extremism has brought about.

Yes, Climate Jihadist are front and center for all civilized humanity to see.

The zeal is now based on Climate Justice.

What a morph to a global religion pushed down upon others! Living for a cause. Promoting the Cause, with zeal.

Climatic Jihad? | Watts Up With That?

.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
.

...snipped "propaganda" rant....
Wrong, Heissonear.
All a person needs is high school level science to understand the simpler aspects of climate science, e.g. the greenhouse effect.
If someone were totally ignorant about science then they should trust actual climate scientists 97% of whom agree that AGW is happening.

I happen to have a science degree and so can understand a fair amount of even the more complex parts of climate science literature.
My independent thinking is to look at the scientific evidence for AWG and see that it fits with my knowledge of science. There are even people out there who explain climate science in easily understood English.

Repeating an ignorant story about "Extension of past trends and periods of natural variability still EASILY explain weather and climate on earth" does not help your case, Heissonear, when
* the ignorance is that weather is never explained by climate!
Climate is 30 year trends in weather.
Climate can explain long term trends in weather, e.g. increasing numbers of droughts or floods.
* the science is that global warming is not explained by any "extension of past trends and periods of natural variability" :p.
23 February 2015 Heissonear: Global warming is not natural variability!


Totally falling for the climate science deniers that only have ignorance about climate science is bad, Heissonear. For example the long list of commenters on that blog.
Totally falling for the climate science deniers that only have paranoia about climate scientists ("Climate Scam" :eek:) is much worse, Heissonear.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
.
And some think CAGW is based on science.

It is what it is, a Scam; a devious work of error within society. Those who defend it further propagate the error.


Statement by Willie Soon

“In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups. This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.

“I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack. I similarly regret the terrible message this pillorying sends young researchers about the costs of questioning widely accepted “truths.”

“Finally, I thank all my many colleagues and friends who have bravely objected to this smear campaign on my behalf and I challenge all parties involved to focus on real scientific issues for the betterment of humanity.

Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics


Source: Statement by Dr. Willie Soon | Watts Up With That?


Of course this is not happening. Of course society and science is not being harmed by this.

Who is in denial to this Climate Mess propagation?

.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
.
And some think CAGW is based on science.
And you link to totally no science, Heissonear :doh:

This is not a surprise: Heissonear's direct and indirect ignorance of climate science leads to unfounded denial of climate science from 20 February 2015 onward :eek:

What we have is a quite paranoid Willie Soon lying about what is happening to him. The trouble he is in is nothing to do with science. It is to do with probable ethical violations by not declaring conflicts of interest when publishing papers.

This is made very clear in the many commentaries on the situation.
2015 SkS News Bulletin #2: Willie Soon & The Fossil Fuel Industry Posted on 2 March 2015 by John Hartz
This bulletin inventories reactions to recent revelations made about Wiilie Soon's relationship with the fossil fuel industry while employed by the Smithsonian Institution at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
This bulletin also functions as a supplementary reading list to Dana's recently posted SkS article, Fossil fuel industry caught taking a page out of the tobacco playbook.

A Major Harvard Climate Change Denier Has Been Found to Be Dripping in Corporate Cash by Tom McKay, Science.Mic, Feb 22, 2015

....
Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry by Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian, Feb 21, 2015


Thus the answer to your question is Heissonear is in total denial of facts about the probable unethical behavior of Willie Soon.

But if you want to concentrate on the politics instead, Heissonear, consider where Willie Soon released this statement - the Heartland Institution! This is a think-tank that supported the tobacco industry in their bid to cover up the dangers of smoking and is a bastion of climate change denial in spite of the science. No credible scientist would release a statement via them.
Cry for me, Willie Soon Posted by Greg Laden on March 3, 2015
Even though Soon is ensconced at Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (which is more of a Smithsonian thing than a Harvard thing, but the links to Harvard are very real I am ashamed to admit) he recently made a public written statement about his situation and chose to convey that statement via the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is the infamous Libertarian ‘think’ tank that supported the tobacco industry in their bid to cover up the dangers of smoking, and that has been involved in a range of rather nefarious activities vis-a-vis climate change science denialism. Soon has been an affiliate of Heartland for some time now.
...
Why is Willie Soon of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics releasing a statement indicating he is of that institution via the Heartland Institute, rather than from the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics? I think it is very weird that he released a statement that he is not an industry shill through an organization that is an industry shill. Beyond that anything in his convoluted statement makes equal sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
.
And some think CAGW is based on science.

It is what it is, a Scam; a devious work of error within society. Those who defend it further propagate the error.

I think you got that wrong: here, I'll help you.

And some think CLIMATE DENIALISM is based on science.

It is what it is, a Scam; a devious work of error within society. Those who defend it further propagate the error.


This movie explains who's running the SCAM and why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ii9zGFDtc
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
.

The work of the IPCC has been of Environmental Extremism.


Who has not seen this in the past may need to recheck their independent objectivity on deriving conclusions.


Defending the IPCC has been the defense of Environmental Extremism in the guise of science and scientific discovery.


As Judith Curry points out clearly:

highlights what I regard as the most serious issue for the IPCC’s reputation. From Pachauri’s resignation letter:


"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."


Yes, the IPCC – which we’re told to take seriously because it is a scientific body producing scientific reports – has, in fact, been led by an environmentalist on a mission. By someone for whom protecting the planet is a religious calling. Even here, at the end, Pachauri fails to grasp that science and religion don’t belong in the same sentence; that those on a political mission are unlikely to be upholders of rigorous scientific practice.


Source: IPCC in transition | Climate Etc.

.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
.

The information you present above is what you "bought in to"....usual rant snipped....
Oh dear, Heissonear: The delusion that you know how I acquired my knowledge about climate science :doh:!

FYI, Heissonear, this was
* High school.
* Undergraduate physics.
* Postgraduate physics leading to an MSc (in solid state physics but including a couple of climate related courses).
* Many years of using my knowledge and brain to evaluate science :eek:.
That is what education leads to - an ability to understand the real world and to write rational, evidence backed arguments.

Why should we think that the opinion of person who has demonstrated their ignorance about climate science is correct? Especially when all they do is continuously repeat a fact less fantasy about natural variability causing global warming?
Heissonear: The direct and indirect ignorance of climate science leading to unfounded denial of climate science from 20 February 2015 continues :eek:
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
.

Natural Variability. ...snipped fantasies...
Heissonear: The direct and indirect ignorance of climate science leading to unfounded denial of climate science from 20 February 2015 continues :eek:

And yet more ignorance!
Here we have a blog confirming a climate science prediction about global warning - it will cause an increasing trend in extreme events, e.g. both colder winters and hotter summers. So having the equal coldest US winter since 1913 is not a surprise.

You think that climate scientists do not know about the distribution of weather stations :doh:! Of course there are more weather stations where there are more people!

You cannot read a graphic, Heissonear - do you really think that are no weather stations in California :eek:!
The graphic only shows weather stations where the record was broken.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
.

The work of the IPCC has been of Environmental Extremism.


Who has not seen this in the past may need to recheck their independent objectivity on deriving conclusions.


Defending the IPCC has been the defense of Environmental Extremism in the guise of science and scientific discovery.


As Judith Curry points out clearly:




Source: IPCC in transition | Climate Etc.

.

Denialism is a Scam; a devious work of error within society. Those who defend it further propagate the error.

This movie explains who's running the SCAM and why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ii9zGFDtc
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
.

It should be BOLDLY OBVIOUS that CAGW is rooted in Extremism.
It should be BOLDLY OBVIOUS that endlessly repeating a fantasy based on ignorance does not make it a fact, Heissonear.

Heissonear: The direct and indirect ignorance of climate science leading to unfounded denial of climate science from 20 February 2015 continues :eek:

It should be EVEN MORE BOLDLY OBVIOUS that citing a paranoid post on a climate change denier web site does not reflect well on you, Heissonear.

ETA: Replied to a few of the posts before :eek:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
.

The work of the IPCC has been of Environmental Extremism.
Repeating fantasies about the IPCC does not make them true, Heissonear.

Do not be as stupid as Judith Curry. Judith Curry thinks that the personal opinion of Pachauri in a sentence in his resignation letter somehow affected the conclusions of the IPCC based on thousands of scientific, peer reviewed papers over decades of work as further reviewed by hundreds of the authors of the IPPC reports :wave:!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Another who sees no problem with CAGW.


In his own words:


wkernkamp on February 15, 2015 at 7:23 pm

I am an aeronautical engineer. Intested in technical discussions. No argument with the radiation properties of CO2 but H2O amplification does not appear to be happening. Probably because additional water stays in troposphere were a radiation effect would be canceled by additional convection. Right now I am curious about stratospheric cooling from CO2 and the effect on ozone as well as high altitude water vapor.

Not worried about global warming because there is an enormous cold reservoir in the deep oceans that could be employed to cool if it doesn’t deliver the next ice age already on its own.


Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Denialism is a scam.
Another DENIALIST who often pretends to be a climate authority when he isn't. He's a scientist, but not the climatologist that Denialists often pass him off as.

****

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)
Credentials

Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), University of London, England.
M.A., University of Manitoba.
B.A., University of Winnipeg.
Source: [1]

Background

Tim Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

He has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “scientific advisor” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science, and is associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) as well as numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.

The NRSP's list of “scientific advisors” includes Tim Patterson, Tad Murty and Sallie Baliunas, all of which are also listed as advisors to the Friends of Science.

DeSmog uncovered that two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project were at one time senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”




Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) | DeSmogBlog
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Here is another person not "lining up" to the CAGW mess.


oz4caster on February 15, 2015 at 11:51 pm

I’m a meteorologist and environmental engineer with a long-time interest in all earth sciences and astronomy. I have a Bachelors Degree in Engineering Science (1974) and Masters Degree in Engineering (1979) from the University of Texas at Austin with a major in meteorology and minor in environmental health engineering. I have close to 40 years of work experience in air quality and weather forecasting, analysis, monitoring, quality assurance, and data validation.

I initially accepted the human-caused global warming propaganda up until 2008 when I decided to look into the science in more detail. I quickly found that the evidence was shaky at best and largely dependent on speculative positive feedbacks and unvalidated models. I have used weather model output extensively for forecasting weather and air quality and it is amazing how well our modern weather models can forecast the weather for several days compared to what I saw in college days in the early 1970’s. However, these models obviously have severe limitations for longer time periods and that leads me to be very skeptical that unvalidated climate models can tell us much about the future climate. The more I read about the complexity of global climate, the more I am convinced that our infant climate modeling may take decades or even centuries of trial and error to reach a point of reasonable reliability for periods of decades to a century.

I greatly dislike the way “man-made global warming” has been renamed “climate change” because the two are not the same. I believe that global climate is constantly changing but human influence is likely to be small and greatly overwhelmed by a wide variety of complicated natural forcings. My experience in working extensively with temperature measurements and temperature forecasting leads me to believe that our best estimates of global temperature anomalies based on surface measurements have a much larger degree of uncertainty than has been implied by most users of these estimates. My feeling is that in recent years the uncertainty of ground-based annual global temperature anomaly estimates could easily be on the order of 0.3C to 0.5C and prior to 1900 perhaps as much as 1-2C. In my view these large uncertainties make it difficult to reliably determine small temperature trends on a global basis. I believe the USCRN is a baby step in the right direction, but we really need a GCRN including fixed ocean stations.


Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.



I guess he deserves to be attacked too!


.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.