Origin of the Climate Change Cult

[ChemEngineer]

Effects of global temperature increases have been dramatically overstated. Why? For money.​

There's money on the table if you can prove that CO2 increases the temperature, said British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. The Royal Society then formed the International Panel for Climate Control (IPCC). Thus began the distortion of science for billions of research dollars, which emphasized drama, not science.

www.telegraph.co.uk​

"Certainly, Mrs. Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming, back in 1988, With her scientific background, she had fallen under the spell of Sir Crispin Tickell, then our man at the UN. In the 1970s, he had written a book warning that the world was cooling, but he had since become an ardent convert to the belief that it was warming, Under his influence, as she recorded in her memoirs, she made a series of speeches, in Britain and to world bodies, calling for urgent international action, and citing evidence given to the US Senate by the arch-alarmist Jim Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.​

She found equally persuasive the views of a third prominent convert to the cause, Dr. John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office. She backed him in the setting up of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, and promised the Met Office lavish funding for its Hadley Centre, which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on "human-induced climate change".​

In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.​

theglobalwarmingfraud

TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

 

[1srelluc]

Who knew that you could pull numbers out of your ass and get paid handsomely for it?

 

[Oddball]

Who knew that you could pull numbers out of your ass and get paid handsomely for it?

 

[Ringo]

 

[Flash]

The problem these Environmental Wackos don't want to acknowledge is that there has been a tremendous amount of fraud in this scam.

The Principle Scientists admitted to manipulating, falsifying and cherry picking the data. Organizations like NASA, NOAA and the UN Climate Commission have been caught red handed creating fraudulent data.

There is no credibility to the AGW scam. All they really have is nothing more a silly non scientific correlation and a bunch of shit in shit out computer simulations. No real verifiable hard scientific data to back anything up. That is why none of their dire predictions ever come true.

If AGW was real then the science would be there, but it is not and that is why they had to create fraudulent data.

 

[ChemEngineer]

 

[ChemEngineer]

NO WARMING AT ALL: Global COOLING continues for eighth straight year, according to NOAA data​

NO WARMING AT ALL: Global COOLING continues for eighth straight year, according to NOAA data

There is no climate emergency: Around 1,500 scientists and professionals oppose net-zero CO2 policy​

There is no climate emergency: Around 1,500 scientists and professionals oppose net-zero CO2 policy

 

[Muhammed]

View attachment 769783

 

[Crick]

Effects of global temperature increases have been dramatically overstated. Why? For money.​

There's money on the table if you can prove that CO2 increases the temperature, said British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. The Royal Society then formed the International Panel for Climate Control (IPCC). Thus began the distortion of science for billions of research dollars, which emphasized drama, not science.

www.telegraph.co.uk​

"Certainly, Mrs. Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming, back in 1988, With her scientific background, she had fallen under the spell of Sir Crispin Tickell, then our man at the UN. In the 1970s, he had written a book warning that the world was cooling, but he had since become an ardent convert to the belief that it was warming, Under his influence, as she recorded in her memoirs, she made a series of speeches, in Britain and to world bodies, calling for urgent international action, and citing evidence given to the US Senate by the arch-alarmist Jim Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.​

She found equally persuasive the views of a third prominent convert to the cause, Dr. John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office. She backed him in the setting up of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, and promised the Met Office lavish funding for its Hadley Centre, which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on "human-induced climate change".​

In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.​

theglobalwarmingfraud

TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

The IPCC was formed by the UN, not the Royal Society and IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In "Statecraft", Thatcher says:

The doomsters’ favourite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method. --Margaret Thatcher, Statecraft, HarperCollins 2002

Thatcher's comment here can be boiled down to:
1) The science was obscure
2) Everyone talks about the weather
3) The problem could only be considered globally
4) It provides an excuse for socialism.

If anyone here thinks this solidly refutes all the science supporting AGW theory, they're out of their minds.

 

[cnm]

If anyone here thinks this solidly refutes all the science supporting AGW theory, they're out of their minds.

Only people out of their minds will cite Thatcher on anything...

 

[expat_panama]

Only people out of their minds will cite Thatcher on anything...

So we can agree that Thatcher was wrong when she warned of the dangers of AGW back in 1988?

 

[Crick]

So we can agree that Thatcher was wrong when she warned of the dangers of AGW back in 1988?

She made a much better case for AGW than against it.

 

[expat_panama]

She made a much better case for AGW than against it.

You sound like you're disagreeing w/ w/ cnm, when he said--

Only people out of their minds will cite Thatcher on anything...

So let's be clear, your point is that Thatcher was right?

 

[cnm]

So we can agree that Thatcher was wrong when she warned of the dangers of AGW back in 1988?

We can agree that she so wildly politicised everything she's not worth citing.

 

[Oddball]

The IPCC was formed by the UN, not the Royal Society and IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In "Statecraft", Thatcher says:

The doomsters’ favourite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method. --Margaret Thatcher, Statecraft, HarperCollins 2002

Thatcher's comment here can be boiled down to:
1) The science was obscure
2) Everyone talks about the weather
3) The problem could only be considered globally
4) It provides an excuse for socialism.

If anyone here thinks this solidly refutes all the science supporting AGW theory, they're out of their minds.

AGW is still a hypothesis...There's not enough actual physically and independently reproducible and verifiable evidence to make it an legit theory...All the alleged "science" is limited to a closed cabal of insiders.

Thatcher was100% correct.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I'll help you Al Gore followers with these graphs which will certainly confuse you.
The Keeling Curve, at top, was skewed very badly to frighten people and convince them that they had to follow this pseudoscience they call "science." When adjusted for a zero base to prevent skewing, and when the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, is added, it's not at all scary.

These are infrared spectra showing how much energy is absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide respectively.
Water vapor is clearly ten times more powerful a greenhouse gas, ceteris paribus. However, water vapor is more concentrated in our atmosphere by 15,000 ppmv versus 411.84 ppmv.

Qualitatively and quantitatively, carbon dioxide is trivial, and humans account for about 4% of it. Decomposition of dead plants and animals together with natural gases from volcanoes and decomposing carbonates account for the bulk.

This is why Barack Obama purchased a $14 million oceanfront mansion in Martha's Vineyard after screeching "Climate change is the biggest threat facing America." What a Marxist liar he is.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 781882

I'll help you Al Gore followers with these graphs which will certainly confuse you.
The Keeling Curve, at top, was skewed very badly to frighten people and convince them that they had to follow this pseudoscience they call "science." When adjusted for a zero base to prevent skewing, and when the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, is added, it's not at all scary.

View attachment 781883
These are infrared spectra showing how much energy is absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide respectively.
Water vapor is clearly ten times more powerful a greenhouse gas, ceteris paribus. However, water vapor is more concentrated in our atmosphere by 15,000 ppmv versus 411.84 ppmv.

Qualitatively and quantitatively, carbon dioxide is trivial, and humans account for about 4% of it. Decomposition of dead plants and animals together with natural gases from volcanoes and decomposing carbonates account for the bulk.

This is why Barack Obama purchased a $14 million oceanfront mansion in Martha's Vineyard after screeching "Climate change is the biggest threat facing America." What a Marxist liar he is.

Water is a precipitable component of our air and has a lifetime measured in days. Human activity CANNOT directly cause it's atmospheric levels to increase. Carbon dioxide is NOT a precipitable component of the atmosphere and has a lifespan measured in centuries. I have no idea where your "4%" figure comes from, but both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping both show that nearly every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere since pre-industrial times originated in the combustion of fossil fuels.

 

[Ringo]

Water is a precipitable component of our air and has a lifetime measured in days. Human activity CANNOT directly cause it's atmospheric levels to increase. Carbon dioxide is NOT a precipitable component of the atmosphere and has a lifespan measured in centuries. I have no idea where your "4%" figure comes from, but both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping both show that nearly every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere since pre-industrial times originated in the combustion of fossil fuels.

What about cow farts?

 

[ChemEngineer]

What about cow farts?

Ringo, I had to click on the link to show the Ignored Comment by the Leftist you quoted, just out of curiosity.
He makes ignorant statements such as carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for centuries.
WHAT the hell does he think plants utilize in forming cellulose and other carbohydrates? They use atmospheric carbon dioxide and millions of tons of it, daily, in oceans, lakes, forests, crops and grasslands.
Moreover when scientists increase the carbon dioxide levels inside greenhouses, the plants accelerate their growth rates!

Oxygen is not converted from carbon dioxide by plants. Rather they convert the oxygen in water to oxygen and retain carbon - oxygen bonds to form cellulose and sugars.

Finally, the time any gas is in the atmosphere is irrelevant with respect to its activities there. Who cares if the molecules have been in the atmosphere for a day or a year. They act as shown in the IR Spectra I provided. This is simple science but it obviously over the head of Lefties such as crick.

As to his ignorance regarding sources of carbon dioxide:

Murray Salby presented this graph below at a seminar and queried, "Do I have to ask you if this represents the carbon dioxide emissions of humans?"