Global Warming is a Scam

RealityCheck01 said:

One of these days you are going to present some actual science, Heissonear, and astound everyone reading this thread !

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 !
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 includes the science that AGW exists and that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

Statement by Willie Soon

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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


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


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

Click to expand...

wkernkamp on February 15, 2015 at 7:23 pm

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...