CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Here it is in a nut shell... Dr David Evans

 

[Sunsettommy]

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

You wrote this howler:

"Since 1979 we have observed the heat in the Troposphere with satellites, and this is what we have seen."

The chart doesn't support your claim since it doesn't distinguish the difference between postulated warm forcing CO2 effect and just normal changes.

You like most alarmists don't realize this very chart you posted DESTROYS the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is well below what the AGW mandates to be legitimate. The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED that it would warm on average of .30C per decade, but Satellite data show only about .16C per decade rate, or about .40C total after 2 1/2 decades.

Not even close.....

Epic fail!

 

[catatomic]

It's ok Billy Bob i went back

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Fellow, kind of say Global lower atmosphere in big letters.

 

[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.

Here it is in a nut shell... Dr David Evans

Boy you found and said it Billy bob. This is what I suspected. China must hate you☺

 

[catatomic]

OK Wuwei, I read it. 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!

Please follow this.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It's a pity that Trump didn't "punt" on the Paris "accord," and just submit it to the Senate, where ratification would have failed. Now he is deemed a criminal against the earth for killing it.

It was never ratified, thus Trump didn't kill anything.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I see that Old Rocks ignored my rebutting comment HERE

 

[SSDD]

It's a pity that Trump didn't "punt" on the Paris "accord," and just submit it to the Senate, where ratification would have failed. Now he is deemed a criminal against the earth for killing it.

Well, the SOB certainly is a criminal, against more than the Earth.

View attachment 183789

How do adherents to the Church of Later Day Warmers get up in the morning? You believe man is destroying the Earth and we only have a few years left. What do you tell your children or grandchildren? You must believe they have no chance.

Yet there is no REAL evidence to support your belief. You...just...believe.

Hey I got an idea!!! Let's open up our own Church of Warmers...get an exemption from taxation and get rich scamming warmers worldwide. Yippee!!!

You believe a greenhouse does not warm and capture sunlight to hold in heat. You live in a world that doesn't exist Cupcake, where science is myth and myth is fact. A magical world where bigfoot roams the countryside but PH.D's are wrong 'just 'cuz you know'.

View attachment 183857

A greenhouse warms because it blocks conduction to the outside...do you believe that CO2 somehow blocks conduction to the upper atmosphere?

 

[SSDD]

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..." Otto Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report

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.

Did you read the interview in his capacity as co-chair of the IPCC?

Again, nowhere in the interview did he say he was speaking for the IPCC, as you well know. The IPCC was never mentioned and he was clearly just giving HIS opinion.

It is always a hoot to watch you wackos attempt to defend the completely indefensible shit your idols say...want to argue about what is means next?

 

[skookerasbil]

It's a pity that Trump didn't "punt" on the Paris "accord," and just submit it to the Senate, where ratification would have failed. Now he is deemed a criminal against the earth for killing it.

It was never ratified, thus Trump didn't kill anything.

That's correct.... it was burning to the ground and Trump just threw a nuclear bomb on it. That was almost a year ago and I'm still laughing.