CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History

[CrusaderFrank]

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu»
NZZ am Sonntag: Herr Edenhofer, beim Klimaschutz fordern alle eine Reduzierung von Emissionen. Sie sprechen jetzt von «gefährlicher Emissionsreduzierung». Was ist das?Ottmar Edenhofer: Bisher ging Wirtschaftswachstum immer Hand in Hand mit dem Wachstum der Treibhausgasemissionen. Ein Prozent Wachstum heisst ein

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» | NZZ

English translation

«Climate policy redistributes world wealth»
NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, in climate protection everyone is calling for a reduction in emissions. You are now talking about «dangerous emission reduction». What is it? Ottmar Edenhofer: So far, economic growth has always gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means

 

[edthecynic]

So it is an opinion of one individual and NOT any actual IPCC repoprt.

That "one individual" was speaking in his capacity as running the IPCC.

Otto Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report

So you have no link to him saying that in his official capacity in the IPCC. No surprise there. And no link to that quote appearing in the IPCC's 4th report you keep parroting, so it is STILL an out of context quote by an individual and nothing the IPCC "said" as you have originally lied about.
Thank you.

Yes Honey Boo Boo. The Interview from which that came was in his capacity as as head of the IPCC.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
"Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

LIAR!
Nowhere in that interview is he speaking for the IPCC, but you knew that already. He is just giving his OPINION.

And newsbusters are known liars and the Global Warming Policy Foundation are a denier think tank, so their translation is suspect.

He was interviewed as Chair of the IPCC

OMG!

Can you not read English

He was NEVER chair of the IPCC.
He was co-chair of Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change" a subgroup of the IPCC.
Apparently your English is worse than mine!!!

OMG!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That "one individual" was speaking in his capacity as running the IPCC.

Otto Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report

So you have no link to him saying that in his official capacity in the IPCC. No surprise there. And no link to that quote appearing in the IPCC's 4th report you keep parroting, so it is STILL an out of context quote by an individual and nothing the IPCC "said" as you have originally lied about.
Thank you.

Yes Honey Boo Boo. The Interview from which that came was in his capacity as as head of the IPCC.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
"Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

LIAR!
Nowhere in that interview is he speaking for the IPCC, but you knew that already. He is just giving his OPINION.

And newsbusters are known liars and the Global Warming Policy Foundation are a denier think tank, so their translation is suspect.

He was interviewed as Chair of the IPCC

OMG!

Can you not read English

He was NEVER chair of the IPCC.
He was co-chair of Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change" a subgroup of the IPCC.
Apparently your English is worse than mine!!!

OMG!

Keep running with Edenhofer had nothing in common with the IPCC

"From 2004 to 2008 Edenhofer was a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) in 2007. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the same year.[3]...From 2008 to 2015 he served as a co-chair of Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change" of the (IPCC). He was a lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report on Climate Change published by the IPCC in 2014. In 2012 he became director of the newly founded Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)."

Ottmar Edenhofer - Wikipedia

 

[toobfreak]

I've had it with climate science.

Climate Science is good! It shows that we are in a cooling trend ever since the start of the Holocene and in one of the best periods in Earth's History! But like everything else that ever comes out of the Left's mouths, just listen to whatever they claim, flip it 180°, and you have the truth.

(Earth is going to hell)
(Tariffs will be the end of us)
(Trump's a Russian)
(Tax cuts only help the rich)
(Obama was all for the West)
(Hillary was an honest mistake)

 

[edthecynic]

So you have no link to him saying that in his official capacity in the IPCC. No surprise there. And no link to that quote appearing in the IPCC's 4th report you keep parroting, so it is STILL an out of context quote by an individual and nothing the IPCC "said" as you have originally lied about.
Thank you.

Yes Honey Boo Boo. The Interview from which that came was in his capacity as as head of the IPCC.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
"Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

LIAR!
Nowhere in that interview is he speaking for the IPCC, but you knew that already. He is just giving his OPINION.

And newsbusters are known liars and the Global Warming Policy Foundation are a denier think tank, so their translation is suspect.

He was interviewed as Chair of the IPCC

OMG!

Can you not read English

He was NEVER chair of the IPCC.
He was co-chair of Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change" a subgroup of the IPCC.
Apparently your English is worse than mine!!!

OMG!

Keep running with Edenhofer had nothing in common with the IPCC

Keep trying to change the LIE that the IPCC was speaking when Edenhofer gave his opinion to a reporter and NOT in an IPCC report.

 

[catatomic]

Thank you. I skimmed all the posts after my last one.

 

[Wuwei]

Thank you. I skimmed all the posts after my last one.

I gave you references to what climate science is about at the link
Simple Models of Climate
But your response was

"I'm sorry I am a busy person in case you haven't guessed and have to get around to these things."​

So you go to a non-scientific site replete with paranoia. Your site has no science for you to judge, but it has these words, taken out of context, applied to scientists:

mad suicidal cult
preachers
fanatical disciple
dogma
pseudo-scientists
corrupt academics
deadly poison
manipulating science
attack pack
corruption of the science
quackery
totalitarian ideals
ulterior political motives
leftist media
publicly fantasized
merely pawns
hopelessly crazy
craftily malicious
criminals
enemy agents
Tower of Babel is falling
galley slaves
too stupid​

You are just plain closed minded to dismiss something that you know nothing about, and believe a site that is full of frenzied ranting.

 

[catatomic]

Alright... I will be more open-minded then. I guess to me Climate Science is pretty credible.

After all they said humans breath out CO2 and plants breathe out O2 and implied that was in balance without considering things like factories and cars.

 

[Sunsettommy]

A fucking dumb piece of nonsense.

But we have been through this before, and you jerkoffs are not worth the effort of refutation.

Awesome comment!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now dumb fuck, when have I ever said anything like that? Like your asshole leader, you have to lie to make any kind of argument. And don't try to tell me what I believe, you cannot even make up your mind as to what you believe.

Your words are immature and unsurprisingly free of science evidence.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Thank you. I skimmed all the posts after my last one.

I gave you references to what climate science is about at the link
Simple Models of Climate
But your response was

"I'm sorry I am a busy person in case you haven't guessed and have to get around to these things."​

So you go to a non-scientific site replete with paranoia. Your site has no science for you to judge, but it has these words, taken out of context, applied to scientists:

mad suicidal cult
preachers
fanatical disciple
dogma
pseudo-scientists
corrupt academics
deadly poison
manipulating science
attack pack
corruption of the science
quackery
totalitarian ideals
ulterior political motives
leftist media
publicly fantasized
merely pawns
hopelessly crazy
craftily malicious
criminals
enemy agents
Tower of Babel is falling
galley slaves
too stupid​

You are just plain closed minded to dismiss something that you know nothing about, and believe a site that is full of frenzied ranting.

You post a link but fail to make a point,

What was it?

 

[catatomic]

Are you talking to me or Wuwei?

 

[Old Rocks]

I thought this article was interesting!

CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History

I've had it with climate science.

/----/ And even more proof of the scam known as Global Warming: SPIN THIS AWAY LIBTARDS.
NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees
Posted on March 20, 2018 by tonyheller
NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased. This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.
NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Oh the mental cases just dismiss information like this....like it doesn't exist. But 30 million people saw it on DRUDGE yesterday which means it resonates with people who are informed. Every green candidate that ran in the 2016 mid-yerms got clobbered...despite 85 million from Tom Stryer. Lol....the people get it with the bogus data.

I am guessing there are fewer warmers today living on the east coast, after three consecutive nor'easters....IN MARCH.

LMFAO!

And, again, you are totally dumb fuck, Gipper. That kind of weather was predicted in 2012 by Jennifer Francis, a Phd Meteorologist at Rutgers.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now dumb fuck, when have I ever said anything like that? Like your asshole leader, you have to lie to make any kind of argument. And don't try to tell me what I believe, you cannot even make up your mind as to what you believe.

Your words are immature and unsurprisingly free of science evidence.

Evidence;

 

[Old Rocks]

In the 1820's, the great French polymath, Joseph Fourier noted that there had to be something in the atmosphere that absorbed energy if the heat budget of the Earth was to balance the Earth's heat budget. In 1859, John Tyndall of England published his findings as to the absorption of long wave Infrared radiation by the gases in the atmosphere. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius, a Nobel winning Swedish chemist, accurately predicted what the increase in temperature would be if we doubled the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Since 1957 we have been keeping accurate records of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, first in Hawaii, and now at stations around the world. Since 1979 we have observed the heat in the Troposphere with satellites, and this is what we have seen.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

 

[catatomic]

OK Wuwei, I read it. Why the temperature not rising in the atmosphere? The article took forever to get to the point. The whole time I was reading it I was waiting for accurate math and modeling. Even at the end they were tweaking their models to match reality and there was no real scientific predictions. Reading it was like, they never discover reasons and results that match reality. The timing was perfect for the modern divergence to be a hoax.

"Scientists could easily adjust numbers until their models
showed self-stabilization by way of CO2 fertilization,
as expected."

"At the other extreme were people fascinated by the dynamics
of the system, who would rather play around with an idealized
model,
running it repeatedly while tweaking this or that
feature to see what would happen."

As per the article I presented, it might be sensational but I now think it's even more true than before!

 

[catatomic]

Thank you. I skimmed all the posts after my last one.

I gave you references to what climate science is about at the link
Simple Models of Climate
But your response was

"I'm sorry I am a busy person in case you haven't guessed and have to get around to these things."​

So you go to a non-scientific site replete with paranoia. Your site has no science for you to judge, but it has these words, taken out of context, applied to scientists:

mad suicidal cult
preachers
fanatical disciple
dogma
pseudo-scientists
corrupt academics
deadly poison
manipulating science
attack pack
corruption of the science
quackery
totalitarian ideals
ulterior political motives
leftist media
publicly fantasized
merely pawns
hopelessly crazy
craftily malicious
criminals
enemy agents
Tower of Babel is falling
galley slaves
too stupid​

You are just plain closed minded to dismiss something that you know nothing about, and believe a site that is full of frenzied ranting.

Just letting you know that I responded to you in the post above.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK Wuwei, I read it. Why the temperature not rising in the atmosphere? The article took forever to get to the point. The whole time I was reading it I was waiting for accurate math and modeling. Even at the end they were tweaking their models to match reality and there was no real scientific predictions. Reading it was like, they never discover reasons and results that match reality. The timing was perfect for the modern divergence to be a hoax.

"Scientists could easily adjust numbers until their models
showed self-stabilization by way of CO2 fertilization,
as expected."

"At the other extreme were people fascinated by the dynamics
of the system, who would rather play around with an idealized
model,
running it repeatedly while tweaking this or that
feature to see what would happen."

As per the article I presented, it might be sensational but I now think it's even more true than before!

What do you mean, not rising in the atmosphere?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

 

[catatomic]

Upper atmosphere I think, but if I'm wrong the rest of what I typed should h

OK Wuwei, I read it. Why the temperature not rising in the atmosphere? The article took forever to get to the point. The whole time I was reading it I was waiting for accurate math and modeling. Even at the end they were tweaking their models to match reality and there was no real scientific predictions. Reading it was like, they never discover reasons and results that match reality. The timing was perfect for the modern divergence to be a hoax.

"Scientists could easily adjust numbers until their models
showed self-stabilization by way of CO2 fertilization,
as expected."

"At the other extreme were people fascinated by the dynamics
of the system, who would rather play around with an idealized
model,
running it repeatedly while tweaking this or that
feature to see what would happen."

As per the article I presented, it might be sensational but I now think it's even more true than before!

What do you mean, not rising in the atmosphere?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

Upper atmosphere I think, but even if I'm wrong the rest of what I typed holds true to me.

 

[Billy_Bob]

OK Wuwei, I read it. Why the temperature not rising in the atmosphere? The article took forever to get to the point. The whole time I was reading it I was waiting for accurate math and modeling. Even at the end they were tweaking their models to match reality and there was no real scientific predictions. Reading it was like, they never discover reasons and results that match reality. The timing was perfect for the modern divergence to be a hoax.

"Scientists could easily adjust numbers until their models
showed self-stabilization by way of CO2 fertilization,
as expected."

"At the other extreme were people fascinated by the dynamics
of the system, who would rather play around with an idealized
model,
running it repeatedly while tweaking this or that
feature to see what would happen."

As per the article I presented, it might be sensational but I now think it's even more true than before!

What do you mean, not rising in the atmosphere?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

Why don't you put this bull shit in historical perspective? why cherry pick just a time segment that is warming, within natural variation limits might add.

Come on old fraud.. how many times must we show you a fraud?