The Global Warming Fraud

[ChemEngineer]

A detailed scholarly article exposing the fraud of global warming/climate change:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf


Abstract of a review of 11,000 climate change papers’ abstracts, by John Cook, University of Queensland

“We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming…”

 

[BULLDOG]

Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.

 

[DGS49]

This is illustrative of the idiocy of this particular debate.

While "consensus" is not "science," it might be instructive to note that very few climate scientists completely discount the human contribution to warming, and very few climate scientists believe that human contribution is the primary driver of warming. Warming is happening and human activity contributes to it. Done.

With that question out of the way, the question becomes, "What can be done to diminish or eliminate the human contribution?" Unfortunately, much of human CO2 generation is not going to change, for a number of reasons. The third world and developing world NEED the energy generated by burning fossil fuels in order to come into the 20th century, so to speak. They are cooking their food on dung fires, heating their homes with twigs, and traveling with their feet. Home electricity is a pipedream. Clean water is unavailable. Do you expect these people (more than half the earth's population) to simply LIVE WITH IT???

Even in the developed world, significant reduction of CO2 is not "around the corner." Solar, wind, tidal, and new hydro are a small fraction of the overall need. With the utterly-stupid rejection of nuclear power, coal and natural gas will be doing the lion's share of power generation and transportation propulsion for at least another 50 years.

A sane program to deal with AGW would be simply to work to incrementally reduce CO2 generation, and look to devise engineering solutions to the problems that will occur due to warming. Start with Venice.

The LAST thing we should do is turn over world government to Leftists, which is what the "goal" is now.

 

[westwall]

Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.

The scientific method requires that a study be reproducible. The climatology studies aren't.

That makes them pseudo science.

 

[BULLDOG]

Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.

The scientific method requires that a study be reproducible. The climatology studies aren't.

That makes them pseudo science.

And how many times do they have to be reproduced?

 

[westwall]

Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.

The scientific method requires that a study be reproducible. The climatology studies aren't.

That makes them pseudo science.

And how many times do they have to be reproduced?

Always. That's what makes it science and not fraud.

 

[BULLDOG]

Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.

The scientific method requires that a study be reproducible. The climatology studies aren't.

That makes them pseudo science.

And how many times do they have to be reproduced?

Always. That's what makes it science and not fraud.

Comprehension problems again? I said, how many times does a study need to be reproduced, not id all studies need to be reproduced.

 

[westwall]

Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.

The scientific method requires that a study be reproducible. The climatology studies aren't.

That makes them pseudo science.

And how many times do they have to be reproduced?

Always. That's what makes it science and not fraud.

Comprehension problems again? I said, how many times does a study need to be reproduced, not id all studies need to be reproduced.

It needs to be reproducible, always. ANYBODY should be able to replicate the results of a study 100% of the time.

One of the leading lights of climatology stated that his experiments probably couldn't be reproduced, but that was okay, they didn't need to be reproducible.

A fundamental violation of the scientific method

And, my comprehension is fine. It's not my fault you are a scientific illiterate.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.

Research has shown that peer reviewed papers are as fraught with errors and bias as non-peer reviewed papers. Your condescending missive is inappropriate and anti-science.

Now for more science exposing the Climate Change Fraud.
This is the fraudulent Keeling Curve.

It is fraudulent because it is intentionally misleading, which science should never be. How is it misleading, while providing accurate data?

1. It has a non-zero base. This intentionally skews the graph dramatically upwards, so readers are frightened! Oooo, do something, NOW.
2. It does not include water vapor, which is THE dominant greenhouse gas, at ~15,000 ppmv.
3. It includes all atmospheric carbon dioxide, including the 96% which is produced naturally, over which humans have little or no control.

Adjusting for just one of these three factors, one gets a graph flat as a pool table.

And please, don't give me the Talking Point about water vapor being *different* than carbon dioxide. Water vapor is a far more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide as shown in their infrared spectra:

 

[ChemEngineer]

 

[ChemEngineer]

.

One of the leading lights of climatology stated that his experiments probably couldn't be reproduced, but that was okay, they didn't need to be reproducible.

A fundamental violation of the scientific method

And, my comprehension is fine. It's not my fault you (Bulldog) are a scientific illiterate.

Westwall, your wisdom exceeds that of the AlGorians as far as light exceedeth darkness.

Paradigms die hard, particularly when billions of research dollars are in the government trough.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

 

[ChemEngineer]

If climate change were so "real" and "scientific," why have all their predictions been wrong?
Why do they lie all the time?
Why are they so hyperemotional and psychotic?

Just a FEW of the Climate FAILS on snow
Caroline Snyder
iceagenow.com

FAIL! “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
— Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

FAIL! “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
— Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

FAIL! More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”
— Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

FAIL! “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
— Spiegel, 1 April 2000

FAIL! Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
— Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

FAIL! Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
— Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

FAIL! “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.
— Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

FAIL! Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
— David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, 20 March 2000

FAIL! The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
— Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

FAIL! The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
— IPCC Climate Change, 2007

FAIL! We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
— Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

FAIL! Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
— Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

FAIL! January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”
— Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund

 

[Frannie]

Peer reviewed research doesn't require peers to reproduce the research and publish heir own paper on the subject. Your missive about how many papers are written on the subject is meaningless.

The scientific method requires that a study be reproducible. The climatology studies aren't.

That makes them pseudo science.

And how many times do they have to be reproduced?

The fact is that climate began changing on planet Earth before there was a climate to change. How because the formation of the climate was change. There is no evidence that humans are adding to climate change

 

[ChemEngineer]

Love ya, Frannie.

 

[Frannie]

Love ya, Frannie.

Well you make one...…………………...

 

[ChemEngineer]

Love ya, Frannie.

Well you make one...…………………...

At's all you need, babe! One is just fine. Know what I mean?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

While "consensus" is not "science," it might be instructive to note that very few climate scientists completely discount the human contribution to warming, and very few climate scientists believe that human contribution is the primary driver of warming.

Steaming pile of nonsense.

In what the rest of us call "reality", exactly zero published climate research, for over 25 years, concludes that mankind's actions are not the primary driver of the rapid warming.

Zero.

And the conclusion of the IPCC is that mankind's actions are almost certainly solely responsible for the rapid warming.

Stick to the politics discussions, where you can pass off your lies as "opinions". That wont work in the Science section.

 

[Frannie]

While "consensus" is not "science," it might be instructive to note that very few climate scientists completely discount the human contribution to warming, and very few climate scientists believe that human contribution is the primary driver of warming.

Steaming pile of nonsense.

In what the rest of us call "reality", exactly zero published climate research, for over 25 years, concludes that mankind's actions are not the primary driver of the rapid warming.

Zero.

And the conclusion of the IPCC is that mankind's actions are almost certainly solely responsible for the rapid warming.

Stick to the politics discussions, where you can pass off your lies as "opinions". That wont work in the Science section.

There is zero evidence that humans are the cause of any of Earths 5 billion years of constant climate change.

Pollution yes, but pollution is not the climate it's pollution like your mind

 

[zaangalewa]

We were 50 years ago able to stop this process. It had happened nothing. So it looks like now mankind is only able to reduce this process and to avoid some of the worst case scenarios. But this was yesterday.

 

[zaangalewa]

... There is zero evidence that humans are the cause of any of Earths 5 billion years of constant climate change.

Pollution yes, but pollution is not the climate it's pollution like your mind

What an irreal bullshit. They way how you say this makes clear, that you know on your own it is a lie, what you say here. So why do you do this? Is to do suicide more fun?