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
Some not only are defenders of CAGW but even the Global Climate Models (GCM) output.

Another testimony below by those who question what is presented. It is not hard to see the error if one examines the information openly.

fizzymagic on February 16, 2015 at 1:03 am


I have a PhD in physics from an Ivy League school. I’m an experimentalist. I’ve done low-energy particle, atomic, and nuclear physics for around 30 years at a national laboratory that also employs a prominent member of The Team.

I have seen first-hand the results of placing too much confidence in models. As an experimentalist, the only authority I completely trust is Nature herself. Until a model has been very exhaustively confirmed, it should be treated with an enormous amount of skepticism.

The physics of CO2 is well-established, and there is no doubt that in the absence of other effects increasing CO2 will warm the planet. The null hypothesis should be warming as would be predicted for the TCS and ECS for CO2 acting alone.

However, the claims of the catastrophists are entirely based on models with very finicky positive feedbacks. The amplification of the CO2 warming is therefore, to my mind, extremely uncertain.

I guess that makes me a lukewarmer. I still believe that the burden of proof is on climate science community to prove that the amplification processes will in fact amplify the warming resulting from CO2.

Two things make me assert that the burden of proof has not been met: first, the scientific behavior of the climate science community has been execrable. Acceptance of clearly erroneous papers, such as those from Mann et al., pasted-together climate reconstructions, a tendency to jump on every temperature blip as proof of imminent catastrophe, etc. all serve to show that the community is less interested in communicating the truth than it is in maintaining a narrative of impending doom.

Second, specific predictions have been made from climate models that have not come to pass. The standard excuse now is that the timescales have been too short, but no such qualifications were stated when the original predictions were made. Until climate models have been unambiguously confirmed by experiment, I believe that it is unwise to rely on them for policy purposes.


Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When one examines the CAGW issue the information adds up of how it is a Global Mess which has come about.

Another testimony below arrived at the same.


geronimo on February 16, 2015 at 7:00 am

I’m and engineer with MSc in computer sciece which I did to convert from a transmissions system engineer to work on the coming together of communications and computing in 1978. I an a naturally sceptical person, but my scepticism of global warming was cemented before I really knew what it was all about by a headline in the South China Morning Post saying that 2500 scientists had signed off on catastrophic global warming.

I’d read about the theory of runaway warming in a Patrick Moore (astronomer) book which explained the intense heat on Venus as a result of the CO2 atmosphere trapping the heat, so was familiar with the properties of that gas.

It didn’t take long to realise that the theory was flawed and dependent upon feedbacks caused by water vapour to be catastrophic. As there is to this day no body of knowledge that I know of about the formation of clouds, with their concomitant negative feedbacks, caused by this water vapour I smelled a rat. So the water vapour will only cause warming – I don’t think so.

I looked into the IPCC and found that the body of the reports were filled with uncertainties, which changed to certainties in the SPMs. It dawned on me that this wasn’t a scientific issue but a political one. I now think it’s political but additionally quasi-religious.

Then came Climategate and the unthinkable became reality. The scientists really were fiddling to get the right results, ruining the careers of people who had different scientific views and refusing to show where the data and workings for the papers used by the IPCC came from.

The subsequent whitewashes confirmed the the science was acting in the “service of politics’ (Richard Linden).

Then came the failed forecasts with global warming changing to climate change, climate disruption and the symptoms including anything and everything, when it’s patently obvious that if we hadn’t been told it was warming we wouldn’t know. Yet there were senior climate scientists, sometimes doing a complete volte face on previous prognostications, making excuses for each and every failed forecast, or simply saying they never made them.

Half of the warming in the 20th century occurred before CO2 was a problem, yet no on in the scientific community has a reason for this, and the pause has continued with an increase of 8% of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is still no credible explanation for it, and it actually took the climate science community over a decade to admit there was one.

It’s a political quasi-religious cult, and it will be 50 years or more before it fades away. Unfortunately.


Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

.
 
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
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
geronimo is a computer engineer ignorant about climate science. He is so ignorant that he thinks that science does not have uncertainties :eek:
Lies about Climategate.
Lies about "failed forecasts".
The delusion that climate scientists do not know that there was warming by other factors such as the warming Sun up to 35 years ago.

Heissonear: Climate science and models include feedbacks such as water vapor. CO2 is not the only driver of climate
 
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
.

Why promote erroneous GCM Propaganda?

1. Because it's not erroneous
2. Because it's serious
3. Because the welfare of our kids is at stake
4. Because people like you have been taken in by big coal and big oil
 
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
What I love is seeing how Denialist's "scientific" predictions bear out.

Be careful who you choose as heros, Heissonear!

On the flip side of the coin, climate contrarians have predicted anything from minimal warming to rapid global cooling. Their predictions have generally been terribly inaccurate, and yet the same people who have made these wrong predictions are still treated as credible experts by certain segments of the media. It seems as though their history of inaccurate predictions has no effect on their credibility. When scientists with a history of inaccurate predictions are treated with the same credibility as those who have made accurate predictions, that’s a problem.

Climatology versus Pseudoscience book tests whose predictions have been right | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
 
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
Who is in denial now?

Who is promoting erroneous science as true science?

Answers: those who support and continue to promote the CO2 Alarmism, and it's spectrum of propaganda.

It is not hard to see the error in the "Catastrophic" Manmade Global Warming claims.

Additional error is required to defend CAGW.

.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
But then the question is how valid was the science that was funded by these fossil fuel interests?
The answer is not very!
The Soon fallacy at RealClimate (Climate science from climate scientists)
Putting aside papers where Soon was only a minor contributing author, and the hopelessly slanted ‘forecasting principles’ papers with Green and Armstrong (see here for why they add nothing to the discussion), most of Soon’s work has been related to finding correlations of a very specific solar reconstruction (see figure below) to some observational time-series. There are very real criticisms that can be made of the solar forcing time-series he uses, and of course, of the cherry picking of specific time-series without mentioning that correlations to others (such as the global mean) are very low, but even accepting all that, there is a much more fundamental problem.
...
The fundamental problem is effectively denial of the greenhouse effect.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

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

1. Independent thinking based on examination

2. Verses following other people's thinking and conclusions

3. Accepting group and consensus based truth

4. Verses investigative truth seeking

5. Herd association

6. Verses associate through independent examination

7. Looking up to those with worldly credentials without critical review


There are many differences in how people derive what they know and which side they stand on contentious matters.

It's not hard to see the error of the manmade over promotion of "Catastrophic" Global Warming story.

Some where it says "do not be deceived or misled". When Jesus physically carried the cross He experienced facing it, looking in the eye those who were misled.

.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
...meaningless text snipped...
It is easy to see, Heissonear, that you are not living on Earth :p!

In the real world of this planet, there is climate science and the predicted bad effects from AGW. The insane error would be not to try to prevent these predicted effects from causing billions of dollars of damage, cutting food production, etc.
Positives and negatives of global warming
The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.


In your world, direct and indirect ignorance of climate science leads to unfounded denial of climate science from 20 February 2015 onward :eek:.
 
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
.

1. Independent thinking based on examination

2. Verses following other people's thinking and conclusions

3. Accepting group and consensus based truth

4. Verses investigative truth seeking

5. Herd association

6. Verses associate through independent examination

7. Looking up to those with worldly credentials without critical review


There are many differences in how people derive what they know and which side they stand on contentious matters.

It's not hard to see the error of the manmade over promotion of "Catastrophic" Global Warming story.

Some where it says "do not be deceived or misled". When Jesus physically carried the cross He experienced facing it, looking in the eye those who were misled.

.

There comes a point where denying peer-review is not independent thinking, but self-delusion. The UFO's from the centre of the earth are NOT an example of 'independent thinking', nor is the hypothesis that the moon landing was faked.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
On one of the current threads over on WUWT there have been 440 posted comments over the last 24 hours. A sizable discussion ongoing, including posts coming from well known CAGW promoters; the discussion is lively.


Bandwagon poster of propaganda don't know what "new learning in scientific discovery is about. In essence "they have already arrived"!!! CAGW is settled science, they say. And calamity has already started.

Not.

Misdirected and not learning as time goes by about what the new observations appear to be showing.

Any new to them has to be confirmation to what they already figured out in times past. So it's not new but confirming observations.


It was interesting to see how Bandwagon propaganda was "applied" to those posters trstimonies, those who use to be CAGW believers but have individually investigated the issue and found CAGW is unfounded.

Those who do not openly investigate whatt the CAGW Bandwagon primotes are simular to convert s that get programed in how to respond to ever issue others present, like Jehovah Witnesses and Latter Day Saints (Mormans) do to those with different beliefs. Once these "devout followers" are "indoctrinated that is all you hear from them; like Morman missionaries they have an answer from their "correct position" for every point other who differ present to them.

We now have Alarmists mimicking known behavior of religious Extremists towards others they talk to.


.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
On one of the current threads over on WUWT ...snipped fact less text...
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.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
Heissonear, this is what actual climate science looks like:
“Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations and Northern Hemisphere temperatures” by Byron Steinmann, Michael Mann, and Sonya Miller
The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth’s climate system. To address these issues, we applied a semi-empirical approach that combines climate observations and model simulations to estimate Atlantic- and Pacific-based internal multidecadal variability (termed “AMO” and “PMO,” respectively). Using this method, the AMO and PMO are found to explain a large proportion of internal variability in Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures. Competition between a modest positive peak in the AMO and a substantially negative-trending PMO are seen to produce a slowdown or “false pause” in warming of the past decade.

This is an explanation for the "hiatus" in the global surface temperatures (while global warming continued unabated) as the effects of AMO and PMO. The explanation is not new. Their important finding is that the PMO has reached its likely minimum and so is probably going to increase. That will lead to a sharp rise in global surface temperatures.

Better explained at New Research Suggests Global Warming Is About To Heat Up

And by Michael Mann at RealClimate: Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause

And for a laugh: an unqualified, rather ignorant Bob Tisdale at WUWT
 
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
On one of the current threads over on WUWT there have been 440 posted comments over the last 24 hours. A sizable discussion ongoing, including posts coming from well known CAGW promoters; the discussion is lively.


Bandwagon poster of propaganda don't know what "new learning in scientific discovery is about. In essence "they have already arrived"!!! CAGW is settled science, they say. And calamity has already started.

Not.

Misdirected and not learning as time goes by about what the new observations appear to be showing.

Any new to them has to be confirmation to what they already figured out in times past. So it's not new but confirming observations.


It was interesting to see how Bandwagon propaganda was "applied" to those posters trstimonies, those who use to be CAGW believers but have individually investigated the issue and found CAGW is unfounded.

Those who do not openly investigate whatt the CAGW Bandwagon primotes are simular to convert s that get programed in how to respond to ever issue others present, like Jehovah Witnesses and Latter Day Saints (Mormans) do to those with different beliefs. Once these "devout followers" are "indoctrinated that is all you hear from them; like Morman missionaries they have an answer from their "correct position" for every point other who differ present to them.

We now have Alarmists mimicking known behavior of religious Extremists towards others they talk to.
Except that it's science, there's data, there's tests, and there's proof. You're the religious one accepting the faith of denialism and just posting assertion after assertion like the above Bulverism without any evidence whatsoever.

Here's CS Lewis on the cheap and nasty logical error of Bulverism: and this is you to a tee, and exactly describes most of your posts these days!

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

Bulverism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.