Global Warming is a Scam

[Heissonear]

Hyping "evidence for Global Warming".

How immature . How ignorant to what has been going on.

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

The cat’s out of the bag. There is no approaching ecological calamity. The aim is to destroy capitalism.

As Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace wrote:

"The collapse of World Communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall led to the environmental movement being hijacked by the political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology."

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Global Warming Scare - Investors.com


And you want to explain this away!! That's not wise.


.

 

[fargonic]

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Global Warming Scare - Investors.com


And you want to explain this away!! That's not wise.


.

Be careful about passing along misinformation. Patrick Moore is not a co-founder of Greenpeace.

Who Founded Greenpeace? Not Patrick Moore. – Greg Laden's Blog

Also note the lie in the Investor's article you quote. At no point does Ms. Figueres say what the article claims she said (that the goal is not environmental care but rather to destroy capitalism).

A lie in service to an ideal is still a lie, Heissonear.

Remember the 9th Commandment.

 

[eclipsenow]

Hyping "evidence for Global Warming".

How immature . How ignorant to what has been going on.

How like a typical Denialist! When confronted with real evidence before your eyes, you run from argument A to argument B, without so much as even addressing argument A. 'Immature'. Really? You call EVIDENCE that? And when real science starts to intrude on Denialist argument B, you can be sure the Denialist will stick around for a long debate into the actual evidence. NOT! No, see, rather than actually confront reality, they've already got Denialist meme C, D, E, and F locked and loaded and ready to spew across their combat zone.

Not today pal!

1. Why are the glaciers retreating?

2. Don't you care about 8 million preventable deaths per year?

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

Look at the history and claims: in the two links below you have statements from climate experts stating opposites - the coming Ice Age causing the cooling verses Global Warming causing the cooling.

.

Look people embarrassing themselves with their ignorance about climate science and English, Heissonear !
Climate science states that global warming will cause the number (and perhaps intensity) of extreme weather events to increase. Extreme events means both hot and cold events. So droughts and snow storms will both increase with global warming. The paper in question is about a mechanism for these extreme events - jet stream waves causing heat waves, cold outbreaks, droughts and wet spells.

The first rather incoherent link is a blogger mentioning the observation that in 1977 jet streams dipped further south than usual causing extreme weather (Arctic air is cold ) and seemingly lying (there are no citations to the literature) about climate scientists stating that the 1977 dip was caused by global warming.
An actual lie is "Nuttercelli says". The actual author is John Abraham. as shown on the blog page!

The second link is Is global warming causing extreme weather via jet stream waves? which links to the actual paper:
Amplified mid-latitude planetary waves favour particular regional weather extremes

...The findings suggest that amplification of quasi-stationary waves preferentially increases the probabilities of heat waves in western North America and central Asia, cold outbreaks in eastern North America, droughts in central North America, Europe and central Asia, and wet spells in western Asia.

So the answer is yes .

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, cold and snow now means proof of Global Warming.

Not quite right, Heissonear: An increase in the frequency of cold and snow is commonly known evidence for Global Warming. It is a pity that you are depending on sources that are ignorant about climate science and irrelevant news articles rather then learning the climate science for yourself.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hyping "evidence for Global Warming".

Followed by ignorance about what you cite and hyping some paranoia rather than looking at the science, Heissonear !
And insulting other posters here.

This is a Investors news article about a couple of non-scientists being a bit paranoid about environmental activists.

The reporter lies with "There is no approaching ecological calamity". That is not what his sources state. That is not what climate models state.


.

 

[Heissonear]

The historical context of presenting "Global Catastrophies Coming" due to increased atmospheric CO2 by man is still needed.

People who do not "buy CAGW" have sound reasons.

And The Scam is learned.

The below is one who through time and experiences found the Scam.

Scott M on February 15, 2015 at 11:55 am

I have gradually changed from a believer to a skeptic to a denier(manmade GW) over the last 15 years, of course climategate was a milestone. Even today though the fear mongering occasionally gives me a scare, then I look at it with a critical eye. It reminds me as a kid being told by my mother that god will strike you down if I did…whatever she didnt want me to do. The money has really corrupted the entire issue, so I understand why there are a lot of believers in positions of power(and money), if the money disappeared this would fall into the same category as talking about the weather.

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

.

 

[Heissonear]

And another learner through experience:

Matti Ressler on February 15, 2015 at 12:09 pm
It is clear that the global warming scare is highly politicised with the motives of the UN/IPCC unashamedlty and publicly being being global social/economic change rather than anything to do with the climate, the most recent being the following: Figueres: First time the world economy is transformed intentionally

In the light of this I am highly skeptical of any push for alarm over global climate. I find the lack of evidence for such simple things as CO2 radiative “forcing” in the temperature record to be apalling, considering how much undue weight it is given. We are constantly told that places like Florida will soon be under water, neglecting the fact that these places are sinking. West Antarctica glaciers are melting due to geothermal heat, not warmer oceans which clearly could not carry record sea ice were they warmer.

I could go on all day……..

There is simply too much alarmist nonsense.

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

.

 

[Heissonear]

And another learner summarizes his position over time:

Lance wallace on February 15, 2015 at 12:30 pm
Lance Wallace

Physicist, Ph.D. in Astrophysics, City University of New York


Taught physics and astronomy (Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology) for 2 years.
Environmental scientist at US EPA Office of Research and Development for 27 years (1977-2004). Concentrated on studies of human exposure to environmental pollutants. Directed studies showing that most human exposure occurs at home due to consumer products (solvents, paints, fire retardants, plasticizers such as phthalates and bis-phenol), indoor combustion, building materials (formaldehyde), water treatment (chloroform), smoking (benzene), cooking (fine and ultrafine particles), air “fresheners” (para-dichlorobenzene, alpha- and beta-pinene), etc.
Researcher at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) (2005-2010)
Independent researcher (2010-present)

Publications (150 or so) can be found at ResearchGate

Lurker here for the last 5 or so years. I read every post. Start to read the comments but quickly stop upon encountering your regulars, who are able (and anxious) to comment on every topic regardless of their demonstrable lack of knowledge on most. It’s too bad that this happens. Somehow Climate Audit and Bishop Hill do not have the same problems. WUWT also escapes some of your persistent gabby commenters. However, your blog is one of the scarce rays of light in our situation of being buried by the UN, world leaders, the media, politicians…beating the drum for climate change.

Became interested in climate change when it was still called global warming. Noticed that research grants could increasingly be obtained only by linking the research to climate change. Turned off by the posturizing, end-of-world claims of Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, etc. Began reading the literature on CO2, paleo, read Plimer, discovered WUWT, Climate Audit, and Bishop Hill. Climategate and the Hockey Stick Illusion confirmed my skepticism.

I accept the radiation physics indicating CO2 acts as a filter for certain electromagnetic frequencies, and also the estimate of 1 degree C of warming per doubling of CO2 in the absence of feedback. However, like the spherical cow, absence of feedback has never existed. In an immensely complicated perhaps chaotic system, which nevertheless has been semistable for some billions of years, it seems to me that feedback must normally be negative, leading to less than 1 degree of warming. (The recent lowering of climate sensitivity from 3 degrees to something on the order of 1.6 degrees in multiple studies is a welcome development.)

Sometimes I get pretty depressed about turning corn into fuel, whacking eagles out of the sky by blades or frying them by reflecting light into a parabolic concentrator, demonizing clean safe cheap nuclear power, killing the poor by the hundreds of thousands perhaps millions by denying them food and cheap energy. I do expect the Chinese will get things right eventually, and perhaps the West will relearn from them the lessons we have forgotten.

Whoops, it sounds like I am adopting the End is Near! outlook of the alarmists.

If we can eventually turn things around, it will be due in large part to you, Judith, and your partners in the Roll of Honor: Lindzen, McIntyre, McKitrick, Watts, Montford, Nic Lewis, Laframboise, Jo Nova, Ridley, Lomborg…

Source: http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/15/denizens-ii/#more-17790


There are so many from different backgrounds who have learned of The CAGW Scam, who have learned through experience of the Bandwagon promoting CAGW. Even Alarmism that is unfounded.

.

 

[Heissonear]

.

There are so many who have investigated the Manmade Global Warming Science, and through such journey found the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming corruption.

David Small on February 15, 2015 at 1:11 pm

I started a PhD program in Environmental Engineering because I worried about climate change. It didn’t take long for me to become a skeptic.

My first paper, a study about precipitation intensity over the U.S., was rejected by reviewers because it contradicted the climate model projections. Though they could find nothing wrong with the methodology, they decided observational data must be flawed because climate models couldn’t possibly be wrong and wrote that the paper could not be published. I then started reading the atmospheric science literature about precipitation trends. It was clear to me that the theory about changes in precipitation intensity were designed to explain climate model results that didn’t mesh with observations. When I found that changes in observed precipitation were largest in autumn, and did not find the same patterns of precipitation in climate models outputs, I really became skeptical about the use of climate models.

When I started working with climate models and saw how poorly they reproduce precipitation patterns, I was forced into the realization that the “science” was being fit to the models and that the models were not very realistic.

From my perspective, this runs contrary to the scientific method. After finishing my PhD in Environmental Engineering, I earned a M.S. in Atmospheric Science and started working on a PhD. As I learned more about meteorology and atmospheric dynamics, I started to see the contradictions in the climate change discussion.

I had another paper refused by a high profile journal because it showed that cold air is required to produce the conditions that cause storm surges in the western Canadian arctic. That suggestion really seemed to upset the editor (an engineer) who wouldn’t even send it out for review.

My later research has shown the importance of strong jets and cold air in building the blocking ridges that cause the extreme weather we’ve seen over the last two autumns/winters. The claims that are being made that a warming of the arctic will lead to warmer conditions in the mid-latitudes because it will cause more blocking are preposterous because strong jets are needed to support the blocking ridges. I received dozens of letters saying my published paper must be wrong because I suggest that strong jets, not weak jets, cause blocking. Most of the claims being made by climate change advocates appear to run contrary to basic meteorology.

As I’ve been attacked personally and professionally for offering contrary views, I decided to leave the field. I will defend my Atmospheric Science PhD thesis and walk away. It’s become clear to me that it is not possible to undertake independent research in any area that touches upon climate change if you have to make your living as a professional scientist on government grant money or have to rely on getting tenure at a university. The massive group think that I have encountered on this topic has cost me my career, many colleagues and has damaged my reputation among the few people I know in the field.

I’m leaving to work in the financial industry. It’s a sad day when you feel that you have to leave a field that you are passionately interested in because you fear that you won’t be able to find a job once your views become widely known.

Until free thought is allowed in the climate sciences, I will consider myself a skeptic of catastrophic human induced global warming.

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.


Many experience the real world that is not presented by the CAGW Bandwagon. Yes, the real world of AGW corruption.

.

 

[eclipsenow]

And another learner summarizes his position over time:

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.
There are so many from different backgrounds who have learned of The CAGW Scam, who have learned through experience of the Bandwagon promoting CAGW. Even Alarmism that is unfounded.

1. Why are the glaciers retreating?

2. Don't you care about 8 million preventable deaths per year?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The historical context of presenting "Global Catastrophies Coming" due to increased atmospheric CO2 by man is still needed....


.

The fantasy that the presentation of the effects of the effects of global warning from increased atmospheric CO2 by man while stop then happening should be obvious to you, Heissonear (or not given the ignorance you have linked to so far ).

Here is a Scott M documenting that he became a climate science denier because he ignorantly thinks that climategate was science

There is the idiocy of thinking that random commenters on a blog are relevant to this thread.

 

[RealityCheck01]

And another learner through experience:



Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

.

And another denier of climate science thru political paranoia, Heissonear



Matti Ressler is idiotic enough to think that there is no evidence OF CO2 forcing in the records - we have record of both CO2 and temperatures !



.

 

[RealityCheck01]

And another learner summarizes his position over time:




Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

And you cannot recognize yet another display of ignorance , Heissonear

Lance Wallace
Physicist, Ph.D. in Astrophysics, City University of New York
With no expertise in climate science!

Noticed the obvious - that as the importance of climate change became more obvious, more grant money became available to study climate change
Wow that even happened in his field of human exposure to environmental pollutants. I guess he should resign .

Denies the science of Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, etc. for his prson bias of "posturing".

Is trapped onto the ghettos of climate change denier web sites such as WUWT, Climate Audit, and Bishop Hill.

Idiotically thinks that Climategate somehow e=changed the validity of climate science.

Displays his ignorance about the verified Hockey Stick reconstruction.

Thinks that climate science does not include feedbacks !

Is ignorant about the past climate - it is not "semi-stable". Climate is in fact chaotic over geological timescales. You not only have Ice Ages, there have been almost "snowball Earth periods".

Seems to have the common denier delusion that because past climate changed that the current change is the same.

That climate sensitivity measurements lowering from an imprecise value of around 3 to a more precise value of 1.6 is good in a scientific sense. We now can exclude low climate sensitivity. It is bad in a practical sense since the negative effects of global warming will still happen.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.
..snipped corruption rant...

Source: Denizens II | Climate Etc.

David Small is annoyed because he has papers rejected by journals after peer review and by an editor.

He clearly has little idea what the scientific process is. A basic part of it is that it is up to the presenter of a paper to defend their paper.

David Small has the delusion that what look like imaginary bad predictions of precipitation from climate models means that they are inaccurate. That is not what climate scientists in general think, e.g. NIWA Global climate models
and the IPCC (2007 report)

Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover.

(my emphasis added)

He ends with not having the courage to stick to his guns and leaving for the financial industry. Compare this to Michael Mann

Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist,[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on the temperature record of the past 1000 years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data."[3]

who has continued and backed up his research despite criticism and political inspired investigations.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Other than rather ignorant comments on a blog, do you have any actual facts about Global Warming to actually discuss rather then write nonsense about, Heissonear ?

 

[eclipsenow]

Other than rather ignorant comments on a blog, do you have any actual facts about Global Warming to actually discuss rather then write nonsense about, Heissonear ?

I hear you!

Not only that, but note how he doesn't even seem to acknowledge photos?

 

[Heissonear]

Many are trying to show natural variability in climate is now "CO2 induced"!

They wish!

Many do not state the natural climate variables that have warmed the earth since the Little Ice Age. They are mute to this.

Sorry, all warming since the LIA is accounted for through natural climatic processes and cycles.

Many try to present the opposite, that all is now due to CO2 , which is scientifically erroneous.

Subtract out FIRST natural climatic events and cycles, and their manitudes, then present what climate changes are then supposely due to ~150 additional ppm atmospheric CO2!!! Your have yet to do so. And now trying to claim all recent warming as due to CO2!

Nice try.

Many think 150 ppm CO2 in earth's atmosphere took over what weather and climate we now see on earth.

Yep, many state that ~150 ppm CO2 took over all natural forces controlling earth's weather and CO2 is now the thermostat to earth's temperature . What blantant error and out-of-perspective scientific mentality.

What has controlled earth's temperate for all of time past the Bandwagon has now tried to set aside.

.

 

[eclipsenow]

Many are trying to show natural variability in climate is now "CO2 induced"!

They wish!

Many do not state the natural climate variables that have warmed the earth since the Little Ice Age. They are mute to this.

natural climate variables

Denialist just trot this mantra out without any evidence for it! Now, what evidence is there for these 'natural forcings' that are apparently dominating the last century's climate system? How do we measure them? What strength do they have in the climate system?

CO2 is easy to measure in a Fourier Device, and then some fairly simple mathematics does the rest. The Radiative Forcing Equation shows the extra anthropogenic CO2 to be 4 Hiroshima Bombs per second!

Sorry, all warming since the LIA is accounted for through natural climatic processes and cycles.

Again with the assertion, again lacking evidence.

Many try to present the opposite, that all is now due to CO2 , which is scientifically erroneous.

Fourier Device + Radiative Forcing Equation both stand up under scrutiny. 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.

But Denialist science haters who see tinfoil hat conspiracies in one of the greatest, most urgent social concerns we have this century are of course welcome to respond with data!

Subtract out FIRST natural climatic events and cycles, and their manitudes, then present what climate changes are then supposely due to ~150 additional ppm atmospheric CO2!!! Your have yet to do so. And now trying to claim all recent warming as due to CO2!
Um, get a grip. The IPCC has already accounted for the natural forcings.

Many think 150 ppm CO2 in earth's atmosphere took over what weather and climate we now see on earth.

Evidence? It didn't. It was a feedback in the Milankovitch cycles worth about an extra 40% of the warming or cooling in the Ice Age cycle. Expanding ice sheets trap CO2 (forcing the world cooler), retreating ice sheets release CO2. It was the gunpowder in the trigger of Milankovitch cycles, but today CO2 is the trigger because WE are releasing it, not Milankovitch cycles.

Yep, many state that ~150 ppm CO2 took over all natural forces controlling earth's weather and CO2 is now the thermostat to earth's temperature . What blantant error and out-of-perspective scientific mentality.

What blatantly unscientific paranoid conspiracy are you pushing today?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Many are trying to show natural variability in climate is now "CO2 induced"!
...more incoherent text....

That statement is really incoherent but looks like a lie, Heissonear.
Every climate scientist knows that natural variability is ... natural variability and has many sources from the Sun to CO2 !

You follow with the usual total ignorance about climate science, Heissonear.

No one is "mute" to the drivers of climate ("natural climate variables"). Drivers such as the Sun and CO2 are a part of climate models.

The current warming cannot be explained by natural climatic processes and cycles.

Many try to present the science that you blindly deny, Heissonear. The current global warming is primarily (not all ) driven by the measure increased in human emissions of CO2.
* Until the mid 1970's, another driver was the Sun which increased its output. But for the last 35 years the Sun's output has decreased a little while global temperatures went up.
* Over the last 15 years or so natural cycles have reduced the rate of global warming (probably through sequestering more heat in the oceans). That seems to be at an end since 2014 is the hottest or second hottest (depending on the dataset) year on record.

The ignorant demand of subtracting out FIRST natural climatic events and cycles, and their magnitudes, then present what climate changes are then actually due to additional atmospheric CO2!!! whch as actually been done for the major natural climatic events and cycles !
Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) have published a paper in Environmental Research Letters seeking to extract the human-caused global warming signal from the global surface temperature and lower troposphere temperature data. In order to accomplish this goal, the authors effectively filter out the effects of solar activity, the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and volcanic activity.

Many have learned and understood that your "150 ppm CO2 in earth's atmosphere" actually took over the driving of global temperatures, e.g. 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening: The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.

Communicating the expert consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions. Thus it's perhaps not surprising that Cook et al. (2013) and its 97% consensus result have been the subject of extensive denial among the usual climate contrarian suspects. After all, the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, and climate contrarians have been engaged in a disinformation campaign regarding the expert climate consensus for over two decades. For example, Western Fuels Association conducted a half-million dollar campaign in 1991 designed to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).

Wrong, Heissonear: Many can read English and understand graphs to see that ~150 ppm CO2 is not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
The Atmospheric CO2 for January 2015 is 399.85 ppm.
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? (from 2004)

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

That is an increase of 100 ppm, Heissonear. Or an increase of 119 ppm to January 2015.

.