Global Warming is a Scam

[Heissonear]

Are some on CF defending the "science" promoting CAGW?

Mike Doutt on February 15, 2015 at 4:08 pm

I’m just an old mechanical engineer and the whole idea that some scientists have the global climate system accurately modelled just pegged my XX meter even before I read about the the hockey stick and climategate.

I also question the assumption that warming is bad. I kinda think it can be a good thing as I love hot weather!

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.


It does not take much investigation of the CAGW science, even the over promotion of "Global Climate Models", to discern the blatant corruption within such.

.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Looks like the testimony of JC listed below from Climate, Etc points out the obvious about the "Climate Mess" that has resulted from promoting CAGW.

And some on CF sternly are trying to defend CAGW? Go figure.

JC on February 15, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Up until 1995 I generally had a positive view of AGW, especially because as a forest manager in NZ it meant more tree planting and hence more income for me. My background was University Entrance exams in the 60s at school however I went for the inhouse qualifications of the Forest Service which included a lot on silviculture, geology, botany and even a short course on climatology.

In 1995 I was involved with the old newsgroups and in the course of discussing climate someone mentioned a big disconnect between the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers and the actual science. I was a bit intrigued and went to look at the actual science and was amazed at the very cautious conclusions of the scientists compared to the Summary.. I smelt a very dead rat.

Thats what started my skepticism but it wasn’t till about 2002 that I actually found out about blogs and finally had access to the tremendous body of skepticism about AGW there was around the world. I devoured dozens of climate sites and within a few years I visited never less than six sites a day (plus links). These days I have my old favourites of WUWT, Climate Audit, Bishop Hill, The HockeySchtick, Climate etc, JoNova that I mostly read everyday plus some floaters like Matt Ridley, C3, Climate Skeptic and A Chemist in Langley.

If I had to pick a handful of topics that deepen my skepticism every year it would be Climategate, The Pause, the “Its Worse Than We Thought” brigade, the 97% Consensus and the unrelenting barrage of insults that flow from the AGW “scientists” and media.

Overhanging all this is my growing belief that we are dealing with a huge monoculture on climate change.. a rigid conformity in a belief system that looks distressingly like a totalitarian state or an intolerant religion that can’t possibly be right because its atrophied but still incredibly dangerous.

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

.

 

[eclipsenow]

Are some on CF defending the "science" promoting CAGW?

I think you got that sentence the wrong way around, dude. Let me help you.

"Are some on CF defending the "science" promoting brain-dead Denialism?"
There: that's more accurate.

To believe climate science is wrong requires you to hold to some truly mind-blowing international conspiracy theory of some sort. After all, any decent physics lab on the planet can demonstrate the heat trapping capacity of CO2 and the rest is just a little mathematics. (Well, and observation of retreating ice, earlier springs, later winters, migrating ecosystems moving up mountains and towards the poles, increasing bushfire seasons, greater storms, and all those other things you think you can make vanish with 2 silly words you're not allowed to use because you hate all climate science in the first place: 'natural variability'. D'uh! As if climate scientists don't measure natural variability!)

But back to conspiracy theories.

Can you name one conspiracy theory that turned out to be true?

The tobacco industry is now known to have “conspired” against the public in their efforts to undermine the well-established scientific evidence linking smoking to ill health. One of the US judges famously said: “The US tobacco industry has engaged in a criminal conspiracy for more than 50 years.”

https://theconversation.com/from-co...enial-a-cognitive-psychologist-explains-25731

Here's the deal: rather than climate change being one of the most demonstrable conspiracy theories of all time, the facts are that the Denialist have been bought out by coal and oil tycoons. Denialists are the ones that have orchestrated an anti-science conspiracy. They even show appalling arrogance by using some of the very same scientists that created FUD around anti-smoking campaigns!

After all, can you PROVE that smoking always causes cancer? Always? Why, I've known dozens of people who smoked to live to a ripe old age....

Dude. Don't look now, but chances are that your opinions were paid for by the Koch brothers. At least, the source was. That original website or article you read that moved you to dump science and convert to Denialism. You probably don't even remember when your opinion was bought by King Coal! But now you're their loyal disciple. It's just sad, and a little nauseating.

 

[Heissonear]

To believe climate science is wrong requires you to hold to some truly mind-blowing international conspiracy.

Denialists are the ones that have orchestrated an anti-science conspiracy.

Dude. Don't look now, but chances are that your opinions were paid for by the Koch brothers.

The many personal statements listed in my recent posts are from typical working professionals and their experience with the CAGW promotion over the past 20 years.

It is their experience and testimony.

Your testimony is Extremism and Alarmism, sad to day.

Common educated people find it easy to see through the hype and over promotion of CAGW, and the errant science trying to support it.

.

 

[Heissonear]

Another testimony of when one examines the mainstream climate science.

Peter Hartley on February 15, 2015 at 6:00 pm

My skepticism about “official” climate science started in the early 1990’s when I attended seminars discussing official measurements of average global temperatures. It struck me as very odd that the ground thermometer readings would continue to be preferred when the satellite measurements became available. There seemed to be so many obvious problems with the ground measurements. They had very poor geographic coverage, the instruments would surely be poorly calibrated, station moves and site changes appeared to be ignored or discounted, unconvincing arguments about corrections for urban heat island effects were offered and so forth. Looking further, the balloon measurements seemed more scientifically defensible than the ground measurements and appeared to confirm the satellite measurements. How could that be if this was a legitimate scientific enterprise?

The second event that increased my skepticism was the “discernible human fingerprint” scandal in 1995. This was when lead author Santer changed the IPCC report after scientists had signed off on it saying there was now evidence of a “discernible human fingerprint” in atmospheric temperatures. Not only was this added after the fact. It relied on one of Santer’s own papers that was later shown to have “cherry picked” data in an outrageous manner. The silence from the scientific experts was deafening.

The third event was a conference on climate change that I helped organize at the end of the 1990s. The event that included prominent establishment scientists and some of their critics (for example James Hansen, Judith Lean, Pat Michaels and Willie Soon all gave presentations along with biologists, economists and political scientists). At a pre-conference dinner, I was shocked when James Hansen said something to the effect that it doesn’t matter whether the science on CO2 and climate is right or wrong because we have to get rid of fossil fuels anyway.

I was also struck in the same conference by the repeated dismissal of the MWP as only a North Atlantic phenomenon while at the same time, and often in the same talk, the melting of Greenland ice was touted as the major threat of CO2-induced climate change. This has the obvious problem that if it is accepted that Greenland was warmer than now in the MWP why wasn’t ice melting from Greenland a problem back then? How could serious scientists make such obvious mistakes unless they were driven by an agenda as Hansen had indicated?

The Mann et al hockey stick paper came out right around the time the co-organizers (including me) sat down to write up the conference. Great pressure was applied to tout this paper as conclusively proving the case for strong global warming from CO2 emissions. The easy dismissal of a mountain of prior evidence for the MWP from many fields of study based on just one newly published and barely examined study struck me as extremely unscientific. My skepticism was later proven correct when the paper by McIntyre and McKitrick was published. The name-calling and childish treatment of their work basically finished the journey to full-fledged skepticism of main-stream climate science for me.

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.


.

 

[eclipsenow]

The many personal statements listed in my recent posts are from typical working professionals and their experience with the CAGW promotion over the past 20 years.

It is their experience and testimony.

Your testimony is Extremism and Alarmism, sad to day.

Common educated people find it easy to see through the hype and over promotion of CAGW, and the errant science trying to support it.

1. Put them on
2. Tap together 3 times
3. Chant: "There's no climate change,
There's NO climate change,
THERE'S NO CLIMATE CHANGE!"

When your disaffected bunch of denialists meet, make sure you wear protection. Of course, climatologist have telepathy to help them in their quest for world domination. We all know the conspiracy cannot be proved. They're like the men in black: too powerful. So make sure you've got some of these handy!

 

[Heissonear]

What a "Climate Mess" over promoters of CAGW have produced.

Now record breaking increase in polar ice trend is not natural variability but due to 150 ppm additional CO2 in earth's atmosphere.

“The reason it was a record in January was wind patterns in the time between December and January but Antarctic sea ice has been very high – record breaking high – for much of the last two years, and that’s more of a mystery.U

We can talk about wind patterns pushing things around and making things more extensive, but there’s a broader underlying question and that is these wind patterns we are seeing are not necessarily record breaking or extreme, yet sea ice is record breaking and extreme – so why are we seeing high levels of sea ice now when for the past 30 years we’ve seen climate patterns come and go, and ice has stayed within a certain range of extent?

And that’s more of a mystery. I don’t want to claim it’s something that we understand completely. Many folks – John Turner for example, at the British Antarctic Survey – say this is within the realm of natural variability.

I don’t particularly agree with that. I think there must be some other factor going on, and there’s a couple of ideas for what that might be.

- See more at: Antarctic sea ice soars, as Arctic coverage diminishes


Some think natural variability as a second order factor to observations, which is sad to see.

.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

It shows scientific ignorance when someone states they present evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming induced by the CO2 GHG effect.

Wrong, Heissonear: Repeating fact less rants reveals the scientific ignorance of the author of the rants
I have presented the evidence for AGW: 20 February 2015 Heissonear: ignorance about there being no evidence for AGW

Repeating a lie reveals the scientific ignorance of the author of the lies. Global warming is not natural variability. We have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Simple physics (greenhouse effect) shows that this increases global temperatures. Thus AGW.
Climate scientists have looked at natural variability as a cause of GW:
Climate myth: It's a climate regime shift

A full reading of Tsonis and Swanson's research shows that internal variability from climate shifts merely cause temporary slow downs or speeding up of the long-term warming trend. When the internal variability is removed from the temperature record, what we find is nearly monotonic, accelerating warming throughout the 20th Century.

Climate myth: It's a natural cycle

A full reading of Tsonis and Swanson's research shows that internal variability from climate shifts merely cause temporary slow downs or speeding up of the long-term warming trend. When the internal variability is removed from the temperature record, what we find is nearly monotonic, accelerating warming throughout the 20th Century.

Is this clear, Heissonear?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped paranoid rant and a comment on a blog....

And what does this have to do with your usual display of ignorance about climate, Heissonear?

20 February 2015 Heissonear: ignorance about there being no evidence for AGW
23 February 2015 Heissonear: Global warming is not natural variability!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Some trot down the CAGW trail defending the incomplete science it's based on.

Others trot down the path of
* ignorance about the climate and
* ignoring the real world where science is often incomplete and
* may even display total denial of climate science because of irrational biases.
They even do the idiotic act of spamming a thread with irrelevant comments from a blog, Heissonear !

The majority of people have at least high school education. They can understand the greenhouse effect. They can understand the evidence that we have increased CO2 and thus AGW.

20 February 2015 Heissonear: ignorance about there being no evidence for AGW
23 February 2015 Heissonear: Global warming is not natural variability!

 

[RealityCheck01]

It is easy to investigate and find the error in CAGW.

It is extremely easy to fall for the lies in a blog comment, Heissonear.
And even lie a bit about what you cite - there is so " error in CAGW" stated in that comment.

Here is someone stupidity assenting what there is no AGW in the met records. All that met records show is the GW part of AGW - the A part is in the CO2 records .

 

[RealityCheck01]

Are some on CF defending the "science" promoting CAGW?

Are you continuing to display your ignorance about climate science by citing the ignorance in a comment in a blog, Heissonear?
Yes - this is the "models are inaccurate" myth
How reliable are climate models?

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Are some on CF defending the "science" promoting CAGW?

Are you continuing to display your ignorance about climate science by citing the ignorance in a comment in a blog, Heissonear?
Yes - this is the "hockey stick" myth
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

In a way the climate change denier obsession about the hockey stick graph was good - it probably encouraged more research until it is one of the more confirmed observation in climate science.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Are some on CF defending the "science" promoting CAGW?

Are you continuing to display your ignorance about climate science by citing the ignorance in a comment in a blog, Heissonear?
Yes - this is the "climategate somehow affected climate science" set of myths .
What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

Looks like the testimony of JC listed below from Climate, Etc ...

Looks like you have the fantasy that comments on a blog are "testimony", Heissonear !

Here is a supposedly sensible person working in forestry who goes the ignorant route of relying on climate change denier web sites rather than web sites run by scientists who know what they are talking about, e.g. RealClimate (Climate Science from Climate Scientists) or Skeptical Science

The ignorance should be obvious to you, Heissonear - but then you have displayed so much ignorance about climate science that this is uncertain. I will point out again that you are continuing to display your ignorance about climate science by citing the ignorance in a comment in a blog, e.g.
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The many personal statements listed in my recent posts are from typical working professionals and their experience with the CAGW promotion over the past 20 years.

No, Heissonear. You are citing comments in a blog entry. That is not science. That the opinion of people who know generally know little about climate science and show signs of being climate change deniers, e.g. rely on blogs like WUWT rather then the actual science.
The opinion that counts is that of climate scientists

You are revealing your ignorance of climate science by citing obviously ignorant people.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Another testimony of when one examines the mainstream climate science.

Another bunch of ignorance in a comment confirming your ignorance ofr climate science, Heissonear.

The first event is just ignorance. Ground station temperatures are preferred because they are direct measurements of temperature (actual thermometers are used !). There is rather complex modeling used to convert the satellite readings into temperatures. In addition there are adjustments to be made to satellite readings - they are replaced, orbits change, etc.
And of course GW did not magically start with the first satellites .
All of the problems with ground stations are known and adjusted for by climate scientists.

The second event is the idiocy of thinking that an 1995 IPCC report should include the future debunking of a Santer paper that was accidently right .
An analysis of the development of the 1995 IPCC SAR (PDF) shows:

New lines of evidence had been brought to bear by three climate modeling groups around the world, each suggesting a much stronger possibility that a climate change signal has been observed and that its pattern (or fingerprint) is matched to anthropogenic changes. Ben Santer, as the Convening Lead Author of
Chapter 8, had assembled the results of a number of modeling groups. He presented the results of his group’s effort not just to Chapter 8’s Lead Authors and contributors, as is typical in IPCC meetings, but to the entire scientific group assembled at Asheville.

This is not just the paper that he was a co-author of !
The conclusions and scientific evidence was then presented at the Madrid meeting. The events that happened there are interesting. Shortly: delegates including the single Kenyan delegate wanted Chapter 8 to be dropped. A drafting group was split off to consider this and the Kenyan delegate attended. He was presented with the evidence and changed his mind. It was his support that largely influenced the inclusion of Chapter 8.

There is a lie about scientists ignoring the Santer paper - the paper has been cited 113 times.

The third event is an offhand comment by James Hansen.

 

[eclipsenow]

The many personal statements listed in my recent posts are from typical working professionals and their experience with the CAGW promotion over the past 20 years.

It is their experience and testimony.

Your testimony is Extremism and Alarmism, sad to day.

Common educated people find it easy to see through the hype and over promotion of CAGW, and the errant science trying to support it.

Common educated people who read science journals have good reason to be confident that we are changing the climate.

There are all kinds of Fourier Devices that measure the heat-trapping properties of CO2.

If CO2 didn't actually refract heat the way climate scientists present it, someone would discover it and show CO2 induced warming to be a scam. While some conspiracies work for a while (like the smoking-is-good-for-you conspiracy crowd who now fight your Denialist cause with you), the thing about conspiracies is the truth will out. Especially in science. Conspiracies can't prevent physics labs all over the planet running their own tests.

CO2 DOES trap heat. Look it up. It's a fact. It's undeniable. It's in really old science textbooks. Denying it is like denying the boiling point of water at sea-level, pointless, embarrassing, and dull.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Another testimony from one who is no longer prey to the Global Warming propaganda.

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.

.

 

[Heissonear]

Are you continuing to display your ignorance about climate science by citing the ignorance in a comment in a blog, Heissonear?
Yes - this is the "models are inaccurate" myth
How reliable are climate models?

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.

.

Why promote erroneous GCM Propaganda?

.