"Escapist eschatology" to get out of environmental obligations now

[keras]

Oh yeah - is not!

The simple truths that really do debunk 'climate change', is a lifetime [80 years] of personally experienced continuation of the normal, cyclical weather patterns, the unchanged sea level and the insignificance of the tiny increase of atmospheric CO2 level.

A belief that the agenda of those who push drastic measures to avert the 'problem', is nefarious and is a blatant attempt to establish a world government, run by themselves' is easy to understand and is confirmed from many sources.
That many, normally intelligent and rational people have accepted this agenda and vehemently promote measures that would actually destroy our modern lifestyle, is very unfortunate and will, at the final end of God's Plan for mankind; be an indictment against them.

 

[rwb]

Climate Apocalypse is a lie!!!

After doing much research, though it took some digging because of the so called factcheckers, and a deliberate cover-up, hiding the truth...but perseverance pays off. There are still plenty of real scientists expounding the lies promoted from politicized scientists having an agenda of their own. It's all a hoax, politicly driven there is ZERO truth to this BIG LIE!

 

[rwb]

The simple truths that really do debunk 'climate change', is a lifetime [80 years] of personally experienced continuation of the normal weather patterns, the unchanged sea level and the insignificance of the tiny increase of atmospheric CO2 level.

A belief that the agenda of those who push drastic measures to avert the 'problem', is nefarious and is a blatant attempt to establish a world government, run by themselves' is easy to understand and is confirmed from many sources.
That many, normally intelligent and rational people have accepted this agenda and vehemently promote measures that would actually destroy our modern lifestyle, is very unfortunate and will, at the final end of God's Plan for mankind; be an indictment against them.

Hopefully through prayer and vigilance in bringing forth truth those who have been deceived into believing the BIG LIE will come to understand the truth, and realize that if we don't stop this nonsense, they (the greenies) will destroy societies and their biggest wish is to destroy the United States of America!

 

[eclipsenow]

Excerpt from
Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Rip-off: Read the Bible Like Never Before Paperback – Illustrated, 1 Sept. 2017
by Ian Plimer (Author)

Interesting - so you're doubling down on quoting a guy that even other Anti-Creationists call a liar in his Anti-Creationism? I thought that you would concede that referring to an Anti-Creationist that OTHER Anti-Creationists debunk is NOT a good idea - but I underestimated your ability to shrug your shoulders at reality and just continue.

Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther objected to indulgences. Today indulgences are sought as subsidies from consumers for renewable energy generators in the name of the environmental religion.

This quote is entirely in line with Plimer - he hates Christianity. Interesting that you love his anti-climate stuff so much that you're willing to overlook his biased Anti-Creationism that even other Anti-Creationists wince at! And here I am as a Theistic Evolutionist pointing out that even I wouldn't look to Plimer to address the shortcomings of creation 'science'.

It has never been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming and the recent massive increases in emissions produced no warming.

Both true and false. There are MANY climate forcings - like the 'wobble' in the earth's axis and precision that cause Milankovitch cycles. These trigger and end ice-ages. But the CO2 feedbacks act like an accelerant. If Milankovitch cycles are the trigger, CO2 is the gunpowder. So it depends what period of climate history we are discussing. Climatologists have NEVER said CO2 is the only forcing - that's a myth of the alt-right!

This book shows that renewable energy creates more environmental damage than coal-fired electricity generation and much of the generously funded climate “science” is underpinned by fraud.

Yes and no. Yes, solar and wind if placed poorly CAN do a lot of environmental damage. I agree! But no - if placed properly and with increased attention to other environmental factors - they do NOT do the same environmental damage that climate change does. Coal is also dangerous, expensive, and FINITE!

"More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.

Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality….

Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought

Coal is finite and would RUN OUT in a century if we kept burning it at current rates. But before then - about half way through - the easy coal runs out and then we hit peak coal which means declining output of ever more expensive coal. This could bankrupt any nation not ready for it!

Peak coal - Wikipedia

Fossil fuels also fund people who do not like us very much. Think of Russian gas funding their Ukrainian war, and all those countries in the Middle East that do not approve of western freedom!

 

[eclipsenow]

The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating

How cute! It's been years since I've met someone brave enough to quote the Petition Project! Oh man - thanks - I'm feeling nostalgic. Makes me remember when I was younger. It's just that it's fallen out of fashion in climate denier circles given that the signatories include Luke Skywalker and Donald Duck.

Over to wikipedia as a DIVING OFF point for more peer-reviewed papers - don't critique the wiki - critique the sources IF YOU CAN!

Signatories[edit]
The Oregon Petition Project clarified their verification process as follows:

• The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail, to limit fraud. Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed. The verification of the scientists was listed at 95%,[19] but the means by which this verification was done was not specified.
• Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree.[20] The petition sponsors stated that approximately two thirds held higher degrees.[19] As of 2013, the petition's website states, "The current list of 31,487 petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."[21]
• Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. As of 2007, about 2,400 people in addition to the original 17,100 signatories were "trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition."[dead link][19] The petition sponsors state the following numbers of individuals from each discipline:[21]
  • Atmospheric, Environmental and Earth sciences: 3,805 (Climatology: 39)
  • Computer and Mathematical sciences: 935
  • Physics & Aerospace sciences: 5,812
  • Chemistry: 4,822
  • Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: 2,965
  • Medicine: 3,046
  • Engineering and General Science: 10,102

Credentials and authenticity[edit]
The credentials, verification process, and authenticity of the signatories have been questioned.

Jeff Jacoby promoted the Oregon Institute petition as delegates convened for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1998. Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, said event organizers "take it for granted" that global warming is real when scientists do not agree "that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful" or "that human activity leads to global warming in the first place."[22] George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."[23] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[24] Spurious names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[25] the movie Star Wars,[24] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[26] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[25] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[27] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[28] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying that, although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant".[29]

In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[30]

Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:

In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[31][32]

NAS incident[edit]
A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[33] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[34] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[34]

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[35] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[35]

Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[34] A 2006 article in the magazine Vanity Fair stated:

Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming.[36]
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia

 

[eclipsenow]

Real Climate Science | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." — Richard Feynman

No - denial is belief in the ignorance of experts and the promotion of the importance of an "opinion". No - REAL SCIENCE involves scepticism about the objectivity of the people involved - both experts and myself - and so follows empirical processes to discern reality outside my own subjective preferences and opinions. If you know anything about the Christian origins of science, you'll know this comes from a Christian understanding of the fallen, corrupted nature of our faculties - and even our reason. So we must follow processes that eliminate the 'noise' - whether external to some experiment or internal to our own subjective prejudices.

It was cold during the 1970s, and scientists were talking about cooling, not warming.

What? We've already covered this!

People remember media hype, not the state of the actual science. The science was that the majority of papers predicted warming. Indeed, the warming power of CO2 was confirmed by Eunice Foote in 1856. Only 10% of papers in the 1970's predicted cooling, and of them, lead authors soon retracted their work.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Indeed, so many predicted warming that movies like Soylent Green showed global warming. The Bell Telephone company predicted catastrophic warming way back in 1958!

 

[rwb]

Yes, only greenie science is not propaganda. How could we doubt them with scientific proof like this? Like real scientists keep saying, these greenies will offer a lot of hot air (pun intended) but little if any scientific fact to back it up. Just ask one of them to a live debate with real scientists and watch them run for the hills.

(((If Milankovitch cycles are the trigger, CO2 is the gunpowder.)))

Refutation from Wikipedia??? What a joke!

 

[eclipsenow]

but little if any scientific fact to back it up. Just ask one of them to a live debate with real scientists and watch them run for the hills.

Incorrect: it's exactly the other way around! In fact, I'm beginning to see the normal patterns of behaviour here - but I hope I'm wrong.

I have a saying - "Climate deniers don't debate, they ROTATE." True scientific scepticism is critical and objective. It analyses claims with facts and data, not dogma. Scepticism is genuinely interested in the answers - because thinking sceptics want to learn why other people accept something as true. They’re as sceptical of their own subjective biases as they are other people’s. That’s part of the scientific method, after all.
But deniers are not like this, and just want to rotate through all their usual objections. They don't read the replies, but google their next objection and are locking and loading that BEFORE the climate community have even had time to respond. It's not a debate, but a rotation through all the old denier tropes. Genuine sceptics would read the replies, and actually debate the material. Deniers don't. I first noticed this a decade ago when I followed a climate debate for about 3 weeks and noticed the denier had already cycled through his denial myths and was now just copying and pasting them again - cycling through them like an alphabet soup of copy and paste myths. Deniers don't debate - but rotate through the same tired old myths.

I honestly don't understand how climate deniers continue to deny the reality which is becoming more and more obvious around them.

If Milankovitch cycles are the trigger, CO2 is the gunpowder.

That's my metaphor - not theirs. Don't insult them because of my metaphor. Here's how more professional climate writers put it.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.

Sometimes a house gets warmer even when the central heating is turned off. Does this prove that its central heating does not work? Of course not. Perhaps it’s a hot day outside, or the oven’s been left on for hours.

Just as there’s more than one way to heat a house, so there’s more than one way to heat a planet.

(The sciencey stuff is here - but it's probably useless to copy and paste as it would make this reply too long and you wouldn't bother reading it anyway).
....
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist
​

Now to your PETITION PROJECT. Do you accept scientific findings from this guy?

Claim
30,000 scientists have signed a petition arguing that there is no convincing scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change.
Rating

Mostly False
About this rating
What's True
A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming.

What's False
The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign.

In fact, based on the group’s own numbers, only 12% of the signers have degrees (of any kind) in earth, environmental, or atmospheric science.

Careful study of the list revealed the names of fictional characters from the “Star Wars” movies as well as the name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “Spice Girls” band. Critics of the petition had added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved, including the difficulty—the practical impossibility—of verifying even the actual existence of each of the signatories, not to mention their expertise. To make the latter point, someone had added the title of “Dr.” to Halliwell’s name.

Aside from the potential political motivations behind the petition, the misleading tactics employed to gather signatures, and the lack of verification regarding those signatures, the fact remains that the petition is open to anyone with an undergraduate background in science to sign, and a vast majority of the signatories are not climate scientists.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/

 

[rwb]

We're awake to garbage so-called science! The propaganda from greenies has been exposed! The more that is spewed, the more there is to refute. It all boils down to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ GREED

 

[rwb]

The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record


The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record
How it works and why it is misleading
by Richard S. Lindzen and John R. Christy

December 4, 2020

The CO2 Coalition is honored to present this Climate Issues in Depth paper by two of America’s most respected and prolific atmospheric physicists, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen, who is a longtime member of the Coalition, and University of Alabama in Huntsville professor John Christy.

Professor Lindzen has published over 200 scientific articles and books over a five-decade career. He has held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. He is a fellow and award recipient of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. He is also a member of the National Academy of Science and was a lead author of the UN IPCC’s third assessment report’s scientific volume. His research has highlighted the scientific uncertainties about the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on temperature and climate more generally.

Professor Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, began studying global climate issues in 1987. He has been Alabama’s State Climatologist since 2000 and a fellow of the American Meteorological Society since 2002. He and CO2 Coalition member Dr. Roy W. Spencer developed and have maintained one of the key global temperature data sets relied on by scientists and government bodies, using microwave data observed in the troposphere from satellites since 1979. For this achievement, they were awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how the data set that is referred to by policy-makers and the media as the global surface temperature record is actually obtained, and where it fits into the popular narrative associated with climate alarm.

Executive Summary
At the center of most discussions of global warming is the record of the global mean surface temperature anomaly—often somewhat misleadingly referred to as the global mean temperature record. This paper addresses two aspects of this record. First, we note that this record is only one link in a fairly long chain of inference leading to the claimed need for worldwide reduction in CO2 emissions. Second, we explore the implications of the way the record is constructed and presented, and show why the record is misleading.

This is because the record is often treated as a kind of single, direct instrumental measurement. However, as the late Stan Grotch of the Laurence Livermore Laboratory pointed out 30 years ago, it is really the average of widely scattered station data, where the actual data points are almost evenly spread between large positive and negative values.

The average is simply the small difference of these positive and negative excursions, with the usual problem associated with small differences of large numbers: at least thus far, the one-degree Celsius increase in the global mean since 1900 is swamped by the normal variations at individual stations, and so bears little relation to what is actually going on at a particular one.

The changes at the stations are distributed around the one-degree global average increase. Even if a single station had recorded this increase itself, this would take a typical annual range of temperature there, for example, from -10 to 40 degrees in 1900, and replace it with a range today from -9 to 41. People, crops, and weather at that station would find it hard to tell this difference.

However, the increase looks significant on the charts used in almost all presentations, because they omit the range of the original data points and expand the scale in order to make the mean change look large.

The record does display certain consistent trends, but it is also quite noisy, and fluctuations of a tenth or two of a degree are unlikely to be significant. In the public discourse, little attention is paid to magnitudes; the focus is rather on whether this anomaly is increasing or decreasing. Given the noise and sampling errors, it is rather easy to “adjust” such averaging, and even change the sign of a trend from positive to negative.

The common presentations often suppress the noise by using running averages over periods from 5 to 11 years. However, such processing can also suppress meaningful features such as the wide variations that are always being experienced at individual stations. Finally, we show the large natural temperature changes that Americans in 14 major cities must cope with every year. For example, the average difference between the coldest and warmest moments each year ranges from about 25 degrees Celsius in Miami (a 45-degree Fahrenheit change) to 55 degrees in Denver (a 99-degree Fahrenheit change). We contrast this with the easily manageable 1.2-degree Celsius increase in the global mean temperature anomaly in the past 120 years, which has caused so much alarm in the media and in policy circles.

Download the report here: Global Mean Temp Anomalies12.08.20

 

[rwb]

The End of an Era – Vale Patrick Michaels
BY JENNIFER MAROHASYJULY 20, 2022CLIMATE CHANGE

There was a time when it was possible to point out an error by way of a rebuttal published as a note in a scientific journal – even in the journal Nature, even when it went against the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming agenda. The late Patrick Michaels had a note published back in 1996 (vol. 384, pg. 522) explaining that there was a major error in research findings by Ben Santer – findings so significant they underpinned the key claim in the second IPCC report that ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’

Pat Michaels’ career spanned the emergence of global warming as the dominant paradigm underpinning not just atmospheric research but more recently energy policy. His death last week represents not only the loss of a great intellect but also the end of an era.

Pat Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society, research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years and contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports – reports that more than anything else created the modern illusion of catastrophic warming.

Nowadays a television news bulletin almost always includes climate change – based on the assumption that there is something unusual about the modern climate; that it has been so perturbed by human activity we are heading for catastrophe. There will be some moralising, and an appeal to the authority of science. Some are animated by these reports, some are frightened, but very few can place any of this in any meaningful historical context. If we could, then we would realise that the fear of human-caused climate change is a recent phenomenon. The late Patrick Michaels understood how public choice theory in economics combined with an almost textbook example of how nonsense paradigms can take hold in scientific research created the current faux narrative.

The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess available scientific information on climate change, assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of climate change, and formulate response strategies. The first IPCC assessment report (AR1) was published in 1990, the second (AR2) in 1995, the third (AR3) in 2001, and the sixth and most recent just last August 2022 (AR6). Each IPCC report consists of reviews of ostensibly scientific work on climate, divided into chapters. Each chapter has several lead authors, plus a number of contributors. In the Second Assessment Report (AR2) it is stated on page 4 that:

The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

This was the first unequivocal claim of a human influence on climate being reported by the world’s leading experts and in an authoritative report. That sentence was read and reported by opinion leaders around the world as a breakthrough; such is the reach of the IPCC assessment reports.

The claim was based on the work of Ben Santer, a physicist and atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, whose job it was to model the effects of human-caused climate change. The nature of his research led to his appointment as the lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 report (AR2).

Ben Santer hadn’t actually published the key study on which this claim was based at the time of AR2, in 1995. The research was not published until the next year, 1996. As soon as it was published, it was fact checked by Patrick Michaels who subsequently published the devastating critic in the journal Nature.

Ben Santer’s ‘fingerprinting’ study looked for geographically-limited patterns of observed climate change to compare with patterns as predicted by general circulation models (GCMs). The idea was that by finding a pattern in the observed data that matched the predicted model, a causal connection could be claimed. Except that Patrick Michaels showed that the research on which the key 1995 IPCC ‘discernible influence’ statement is based had used only a portion of the available atmospheric temperature data.

The Santer study was terribly flawed because of the fallacy of incomplete evidence – also known as cherry picking.

Patrick Michaels explained the problem in the chapter he wrote for Climate Change: The Facts 2017. (That chapter has just been made available online courtesy of the IPA, click here.)

The peculiarity of the [Ben Santer] paper was that it covered the period from 1963 to 1987, although the upper-air data required for a three-dimensional analysis was reliably catalogued back to 1957 – by one of the paper’s thirteen authors – Abraham Oort of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton. The starting date of 1963 was also a very cool point in global records, as temperatures were chilled by the 1962 eruption of Indonesia’s Mount Agung, one of the four large stratovolcanoes in the twentieth century, and the biggest since Alaska’s Katmai in 1912.

The year 1987 also seemed to be an odd ending point. Data were certainly available through to 1994, seven years later, and updatable through to 1995. It is noteworthy that 1987 was an El Niño year, and therefore relatively warm compared to the rest of the study period.

The match between the observed three-dimensional temperature profile and the modelled profile was persuasive because of the projected difference between warming in the two hemispheres, with a substantial ‘hot spot’ – both simulated and observed – in the lower and mid-tropospheric Southern Hemisphere …

However, the omission of data from the years 1957–62 and 1988–95 was puzzling. The reason these data were not included became clear when I added them in. If all the data were used, there would have been no significant match between the modelled and observed data. Santer et al. simply discarded the data that didn’t fit their preconceived hypothesis.

Pat Michaels showed that when the full data set is used, the previously identified warming trend disappeared. His thoughtful rebuttal, published in a peer-reviewed journal, could have been a game changer. But there was an extraordinary lack of political will to do the right thing that exists to this very day. There is a complete lack of political will to call out the fake findings.

Back in 1996, because of Patrick Michaels scholarly rebuttal in Nature (co-authored with Chip Knappenberger, vol 384, pg. 522), Ben Santer should and could have been hauled before a commission and the entire IPCC process quashed.

Pat Michaels took the time to explore the data underpinning the key finding of the second IPCC assessment report and he showed it to be deficient. His summary of the cherry picking unequivocally showed-up the conclusion to be unjustified because it only included a segment of the available data.
Pat Michaels, the scientist, had loaded the gun with that note published in Nature in 1996. But there was no politician prepared to pull the trigger. Now it is impossible to even get this type of rebuttal published.

If a process of overhauling the IPCC had been put in place back then, back in 1996, there would have been no Third Assessment Report (AR3) and arguably no global-warming hockey stick chart that went onto seal the fate of rational evidence-based discussion about global climate change.

Pat Michaels went on to include public choice theory in his writings. He would emphases that it does not judge someone’s honesty or dishonesty. It simply implies that the structure of incentives that climate scientists are currently presented with creates a bias of distortion, in which problems must be exaggerated in order to garner funding … and that this political process creates a symbiotic relationship between politicians and scientists that works to both their advantage. Scientists get resources for their research, and responsive politicians can tout their funding of virtuous causes.

On the reality of climate change Pat Michaels explained:

We know, to a very small range of error, the amount of future climate change for the foreseeable future, and it is a modest value to which humans have adapted and will continue to adapt. There is no known, feasible policy that can stop or even slow these changes in a fashion that could be scientifically measured.

Pat Michaels was interested in measurement, and its statistical significance. And he was prepared to be bold and have his inconvenient findings published and then he was prepared to be interviewed about them and explain it all in plain English. There are so few of them anymore at government institutions – as far as I can tell most publicly-funded climatologists are full of hyperbole or cowardice.

You can watch Pat Michaels from back in 2009 talking about the Climategate emails on CNN here.

To read his chapter in the book I edited back in 2017, click here.

The key rebuttal published in Nature is:
Michaels, P., Knappenberger, P. Human effect on global climate? Nature 384, 522–523 (1996).
https://doi.org/10.1038/384522b0

Originally appeared in: Dr Jennifer Marohasy’s Website

 

[eclipsenow]

The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record


The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record
How it works and why it is misleading
by Richard S. Lindzen and John R. Christy

Ah, now this is more like it! Now you're quoting from the 1.5% of ACTUAL trained climatologists with real degrees in climatology that question it. That's VASTLY better than Plimer!

But still wrong. There are a handful of cantankerous actual climatologists who disagree. But they have been peer-reviewed by the rest of the climate community, and their claims found to be exaggerated and wrong. Nevertheless, the stuff he raises has apparently proved useful to discuss out to the nth degree. Finally, before I hand you over to REAL CLIMATE - the top 4 temperature databases on planet earth all confirm that he is wrong and the Earth IS warming. So do record breaking heatwaves around the world, and record breaking storms. This was all predicted. Every degree warming raises the amount of water the atmosphere can carry by something like 5 to 7%. The air is wetter! Now, to REAL CLIMATE: (a place where REAL climatologists discuss issues):

Misrepresentation from Lindzen

6 MAR 2012 BY GAVIN
Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly...

...What Lindzen is purporting to do is to compare the NASA GISS temperature product from 2012 to the version in 2008 (i.e. the y-axis is the supposedly the difference between what GISS estimated the anomaly to be in 2012 relative to 2008). A rising trend would imply that temperatures in more recent years had been preferentially enhanced in the 2012 product. The claim being made is that NASA GISS has ‘manipulated’ (in a bad way) the data in order to produce an increasing trend of global mean temperature anomalies (to the tune of 0.14ºC/Century compared to the overall trend of 0.8ºC/Century) between the 2008 and 2012 versions of the data, which are apparently shown subtracted from each other in Lindzen’s figure. Apparently, this got ‘a big laugh’ at his presentation.

However, this is not in the least bit true: the data are not what he claims, the interpretation is wrong, and the insinuations are spurious.

The annotation indicates that Lindzen is using the GISTEMP Land-Ocean Temperature index (LOTI, i.e. the index that includes weather station data and sea surface temperature data to give a global anomaly index with wide spatial coverage) (“GLB.Ts+dSST.txt”). There is another GISTEMP index (the Met station index) which only uses weather station data (“GLB.Ts.txt”) which doesn’t have as much coverage and has a substantially larger trend reflecting the relative predominance of faster-warming continental data in the average.

Old versions of the data can be retrieved from the wayback machine quite readily, for instance, from February 2006, October 2008 or December 2007. The current version is here. I plot these four versions and their differences below:

As should be clear, the differences are tiny, and mostly reflect slightly more data in the earlier years in the latest data and the different homogenisation in GHCN v3 compared to GHCN v2 (which was used up to Dec 2011). This is however in clear contradiction with Lindzen – the biggest difference in trend (between 2006 and today), is a mere 0.05ºC/Century, and from 2008 to 2012 it is only 0.003ºC/Century – a factor of 40 smaller than Lindzen’s claim. What is going on?

The clue is that the transient behaviour of Lindzen’s points actually resembles the time evolution of temperature itself – not homogenisation issues, or instrumental or coverage changes. Indeed, if one plots the two GISTEMP indices and their difference (using current data), you get this:

Thus it looks very much like Lindzen has plotted the difference between the current Met Station index and an earlier version of the LOTI index. I plotted the Feb 2012 Met index data minus the Feb 2009 LOTI index, and I get something very close to Lindzen’s figure (though it isn’t exact):

This is sufficient to conclude that Lindzen did indeed make the mistake of confusing his temperature indices, though a more accurate replication would need some playing around since the exact data that Lindzen used is obscure.

Thus, instead of correctly attributing the difference to the different methods and source data, he has jumped to the conclusion that GISS is manipulating the data inappropriately. At the very minimum, this is extremely careless, and given the gravity of the insinuation, seriously irresponsible. There are indeed issues with producing climate data records going back in time, but nothing here is remotely relevant to the actual issues.

Such a cavalier attitude to analysing and presenting data probably has some lessons for how seriously one should take Lindzen’s comments. I anticipate with interest Lindzen’s corrections of this in future presentations and his apology for misleading his audience last month.

Update: Lindzen did indeed apologise (sort of) (archived) though see comments for more discussion.


RealClimate: Misrepresentation from Lindzen​

 

[eclipsenow]

The End of an Era – Vale Patrick Michaels
BY JENNIFER MAROHASYJULY 20, 2022CLIMATE CHANGE

I'm sorry to hear Patrick died - as he has no opportunity to repent of his lies.
But you should know better than to recycle this ancient myth, debunked repeatedly by the peer-review community, and recycled here by a known climate contrarian and BIOLOGIST - not trained climatologist - with ties to 'big sugar'. Quoting Jennifer Marohasy indeed - you must be desperate!
Jennifer Marohasy

Also, you're rotating. You're not responding to the replies. EG: You never verified if this guy signed your PETITION PROJECT

 

[rwb]

5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening

John Hawkins
|
Posted: Feb 18, 2014 12:01 AM

Trending

• Kurt Schlichter
  Don't Let Them Reset Society to Make You Into a Bug-Eating Serf
• Allen West
  The Modern Enslavement of The Black Community in America
• Kevin McCullough
  Read The Poll Again Jack

How did global warming discussions end up hinging on what's happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are "climate deniers" or "global warming cultists?" If this is a scientific topic, why aren't we spending more time discussing the science involved? Why aren't we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren't we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn't causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn't warming at all.


1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

CARTOONS | GARY VARVEL
VIEW CARTOON
2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”
There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

 

[rwb]

NASA's Dr. Gavin Schmidt goes into hiding from seven very inconvenient climate questions
7 years ago

Guest Blogger


Guest essay by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

– FOREWORD: WUWT readers probably remember when the now head of NASA GISS, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, could not stand to be seen on the same stage with Dr. Roy Spencer. Gavin decided to hide offstage while Dr. Spencer had finished his interview with John Stossel, rather than be subject to some tough questions Dr. Spencer might have posed in a debate with him on live TV. Gavin knew he’d lose, so he acted like a child on national TV and hid from Dr. Spencer offstage. It was one of the truly defining moments demonstrating the lack of integrity by mainstream climate scientists.

Now, Dr. Schmidt seems to be hiding from those inconvenient questions again, as Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes below. Dr. Schmidt also hides from me, having blocked WUWT on Twitter, so I’d appreciate it if some other WUWT readers would let him know of this publication. Dr. Schmidt is welcome to publish a rebuttal (or simply answer the questions) here if he wishes. He has my email. – Anthony Watts



Questions for Gavin Schmidt – Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York

by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.

On March 18 2015, I submitted a set of questions to Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS, who initially seemed inclined to answer and ask some of his own. However, he now is not even replying to my e-mails. If he were a scientist without leadership responsibilities in the climate community, he certainly can choose to ignore my request. However, he is a Director of a major US federal laboratory and, as such, he (or his staff) should be responding to such requests. As of today’s date, he has not answered any of the questions.

By posting these questions, I am encouraging others to respond to the science issues I have raised, as well as be used in the future when Gavin is required to testify, such at a House and/or Senate committee. In your comments, please focus on the scientific issues and avoid any comments on motives, personal attacks etc.

My questions to Gavin follow:

Gavin,

Below are my questions that you agreed to look at in your tweet. I have copied to Judy as her weblog is an appropriate place to present this Q&A if she agrees. Judy might also want to edit and/or add to the questions.

Thank you for doing this. It shows that there is room for constructive debate and discussion on these issues.

1. There is a new paper on global albedo Stephens et al 2015

Click to access albedo2015.pdf

There is also a powerpoint talk on this at http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Lorenz/Lorenz_Workshop_Talks/Stephens.pdf

Among the conclusions is that

“Climate models fail to reproduce the observed annual cycle in all components of the albedo with any realism, although they broadly capture the correct proportions of surface and atmospheric contributions to the TOA albedo. A high model bias of albedo has also persisted since the time of CMIP3,mostly during the boreal summer season. Perhaps more importantly, models fail to produce the same degree of interannual constraint on the albedo variability nor do they reproduce the same degree of hemispheric symmetry.”

Q: How do you respond to this critique of climate models with respect to the GISS model?

2. In 2005 Jim Hansen made the following statement regarding the GISS model [https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf]

“The Willis et al. measured heat storage of 0.62 W/m2 refers to the decadal mean for the upper 750 m of the ocean. Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2 , includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.

Certainly the energy imbalance is less in earlier years, even negative, especially in years following large volcanic eruptions. Our analysis focused on the past decade because: (1) this is the period when it was predicted that, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability (Hansen et al., 1997), and (2) improved ocean temperature measurements and precise satellite altimetry yield an uncertainty in the ocean heat storage, ~15% of the observed value, smaller than that of earlier times when unsampled regions of the ocean created larger uncertainty.”

Q: What is the GISS update to this summary including the current estimates for the imbalance?

3. There are questions on the skill of the multi-decadal climate prediction models in terms of their use for regional impact studies for the coming decades. These models have been tested in hindcast runs. What are your answers to the following:

When run in hindcast (over the last few decades) where the forcings of added CO2 and other human inputs of greenhouse gases and aerosols are reasonably well known:

Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting average observed regional climate statistics?

Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional climate statistics?

Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting observed regional extreme weather statistics?

Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional extreme weather statistics?

4. The issue of value-added by regional downscaling has been discussed in

Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2012: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? Eos Forum, 93, No. 5, 52-53, doi:10.1029/2012EO050008. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/r-361.pdf

Among our conclusions is that

“…downscaling has practical value but with the very important caveat that it should be used for model sensitivity experiments and not as predictions….. It is therefore inappropriate to present [downscaling of multi-decadal climate projections] results to the impacts community as reflecting more than a subset of possible future climate risks.”

Q: Can regional dynamic and/or statistical downscaling be used to increase the prediction (projection) skill beyond that of available by interpolation to finer scales directly from the multi-decadal global climate models predictions?

5. There is considerable debate as to where heat has been going in recent years since the temperature increases at the surface and troposphere have flattened. On example of this discussion is in the post

Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean

Q: Since it is claimed that a large fraction of the heat from human input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been going into the deeper ocean over the last 10-15 years (as an attempt to explain the “hiatus”), why is the global average surface temperature trend still used as the primary metric to diagnose global warming?

6. The paper

Matsui, T., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2006: Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Letts., 33, L11813, doi:10.1029/2006GL025974. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-312.pdf

writes the following


“This paper diagnoses the spatial mean and the spatial gradient of the aerosol radiative forcing in comparison with those of well-mixed green-house gases (GHG). Unlike GHG, aerosols have much greater spatial heterogeneity in their radiative forcing. We present a measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. The NGoRF is introduced to represent the potential effect of the heterogeneous radiative forcing on the general circulation and regional climate.The heterogeneous diabatic heating can modulate the gradient in horizontal pressure field and atmospheric circulations, thus altering the regional climate.”

The paper

Mahmood, R., R.A. Pielke Sr., K. Hubbard, D. Niyogi, P. Dirmeyer, C. McAlpine, A. Carleton, R. Hale, S. Gameda, A. Beltrán-Przekurat, B. Baker, R. McNider, D. Legates, J. Shepherd, J. Du, P. Blanken, O. Frauenfeld, U. Nair, S. Fall, 2013: Land cover changes and their biogeophysical effects on climate. Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.3736. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/r-374.pdf

…shows that such heterogeneous forcing also exists for land use/land cover change.

Q: What is the relative role of land use/land cover change relative as well as added aerosols with respect to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases in affecting local and regional climate and changes in regional climate statistics?

6. In our post at Climate Etc

An alternative metric to assess global warming – An alternative metric to assess global warming

we wrote

“We present this alternate tool to assess the magnitude of global warming based on assessing the magnitudes of the annual global average radiative imbalance, and the annual global average radiative forcing and feedbacks. Among our findings is the difficulty of reconciling the three terms.”

Q: Please provide your best estimate for the terms.

7. The book

DISASTERS AND CLIMATE CHANGE Rightful Place of Science Series

Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Center for Science and Technology Policy Research

discusses the role of changes in climate in recent decades on disasters.

Q: What is your conclusion on the role of changes in extreme weather as they affect society during the last several decades?

Roger Sr.

 

[rwb]

Dr Marohasy and climate change
Dr Marohasy has good scientific credentials (though not in climate science), and her papers and other material are well-written. To assess her work, I have compared her arguments with those of climate experts on these important topics:

1. Adjustments to BoM temperature data.
2. Assessment of the 2019/20 summer bushfires.
3. Anthropogenic versus natural climate change.

1. Adjustments to BoM temperature data
Temperature records in Australia commenced about 150 years ago, with some readings before that. However these 19th century readings weren’t well organised and weren’t recorded consistently. Temperature records are especially vulnerable to local variations, for example, exposure to the wind and direct sunlight, and the nearby location (or not) of heat sources such as paved areas or brick walls.

The recording of temperature, as for other meteorological data, has changed and improved since then.

• About 1910 Stevenson Screens became standard. These shield the thermometer from direct sunlight and so more accurately record the ambient air temperature.
• Over time, siting requirements were also standardised. The location of early weather stations was often limited by the need to be convenient for a manual reader. Stations were sometimes moved because of changes to the location , for example, growth of trees or construction of buildings.
• The most common measuring equipment has been the “liquid-in-glass” thermometer, but electrical resistance temperature probes are now also used.
• In the past, some stations were read only twice a day while others had 8 readings per day. More recently, recording is more or less continuous. With temperature varying diurnally, the number and timing of readings obviously may affect the maxima, minima and averages recorded.

All of these factors, plus human error, can affect the temperature actually recorded and introduce inconsistencies into the record. Random errors will give a reasonably accurate average result, but systematic errors (most of the above) will introduce a consistent error – absolute values will be in error though trends may not be affected. Good procedures, training and quality assurance are ways to try to reduce errors.

The Bureau has developed a long term reference network of climate stations, known as ACORN-SAT (Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature). This has required filling of gaps in some station records, records to be extended, and adjustments made to make each record consistent. Original readings are always retained and are available to the public.

Average temperatures are calculated as the average between the daily maximum and daily minimum.

Dr Marohasy’s challenge to the Bureau of Meteorology
In a series of papers and articles over the past decade, Dr Marohasy challenged the BoM procedures and temperature records. Her challenge has been two-fold:

1. Different measuring equipment
She argues that the changeover from liquid-in-glass thermometers to electronic probes has led to higher maximum temperatures being recorded in recent years. This is because the older thermometers were slower to respond and so missed some short-term fluctuations that are picked up by the probes which measure every second. She says the normal standard method requires the 1 second readings to be averaged over a minute to calculate the “instantaneous” maximum, but BoM doesn’t do this. But she offers no data to support this contention.

2. Changes to records
Because of the changes in station location and methods of recording, the ACORN-SAT often required data to be extended or infilled as noted above, and “homogenised” to eliminate inconsistencies introduced. Dr Marohasy argues that BoM has not done this properly and has introduced bias and error into the available datasets. In some cases, she says, older data has simply been removed from the record.

Her accusations and conclusions
All this, she says, allows the BoM to change records which show a cooling trend to appear as a warming trend. At times, she has also accused BoM and its officers of “corruption“, deliberately making unjustified changes to support a global warming agenda and “taking a revisionist approach to history“. In one case at least she uses the word “fraudulent”.

“No conclusion regarding global warming can therefore be drawn before these matters are settled.” she has said.

Jennifer Marohasy - Hughes Fact Check (exetel.com.au)

 

[rwb]

Seems to appear the so-called experts the greenies continue to put forth to prove climate change by humans is destroying the planet aren't so expert after all!

 

[eclipsenow]

5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening

John Hawkins
|
Posted: Feb 18, 2014 12:01 AM

Trending

• Kurt Schlichter
  Don't Let Them Reset Society to Make You Into a Bug-Eating Serf
• Allen West
  The Modern Enslavement of The Black Community in America
• Kevin McCullough
  Read The Poll Again Jack

How did global warming discussions end up hinging on what's happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are "climate deniers" or "global warming cultists?" If this is a scientific topic, why aren't we spending more time discussing the science involved? Why aren't we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren't we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn't causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn't warming at all.


1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

CARTOONS | GARY VARVEL
VIEW CARTOON
2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”
There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

You're rotating again. This is the bit where you need to reply to my replies or you risk fulfilling my predictions about how Deniers don't debate - they rotate. Only you don't just fire one new accusation back but half a dozen new rounds each time! To some that might look desperate.
So did Luke Skywalker and Donald Duck and Ginger Spice sign your Petition or not? Simple question and goes to whether you can slow down and debate - not just rotate through your next 5 myths

 

[eclipsenow]

So 3 posts later and still no answer on whether this guy signed your Petition Project? It would be nice to get an answer to an actual question - and not just another copy and paste wall of irrelevant conspiracy theories.

 

[rwb]

If you had bothered to read the Petition Project you would know the answer, because it tells us there were some who signed the Petition in a way to discredit it, but that names that did not belong were removed. The real conspiracy as I have been overwhelmingly proving with my posts, are those who promote the "green" delusion. Some for $$$$ that comes as grants from BIG MONEY GLOBALISTS, and some because they have been deceived. Surely you aren't being paid to promote this agenda??? Hmmm, where does that leave you?