Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[EMH]

Wait, you can't possibly be saying that every single one of that majority of the AGW guys saying "yeah whatever" are "treasonous liars" are u?

The "climate scientists" who support the Co2 FRAUD are all 100% pure traitors and have known all along Co2 does nothing.

Most of the media "experts" are the same category. The media "non experts" are also mostly in that category because they absolutely censor evidence against and lie and know they are lying when they lie.

Then there are those who just parrot the Co2 lies, and they are definitely in a lesser category, the ABSOLUTE MORON category.

 

[EMH]

No where in the linked articles are the 1,600 signatories identified as climate experts.

Then it is possible they have some credibility, since those the media IDs as "climate experts" have absolutely NONE...

 

[expat_panama]

The "climate scientists" who support the Co2 FRAUD are all 100% pure traitors and have known all along Co2 does nothing...

Whoa, 100% pure is a lot. I've never met any individual who is 100% pure anything, let along an entire group. Rather than my hanging around until you put me also in one of these groups we may be better off by your understanding I can see that you may be right.

 

[Crick]

The "climate scientists" who support the Co2 FRAUD are all 100% pure traitors and have known all along Co2 does nothing.

Most of the media "experts" are the same category. The media "non experts" are also mostly in that category because they absolutely censor evidence against and lie and know they are lying when they lie.

Then there are those who just parrot the Co2 lies, and they are definitely in a lesser category, the ABSOLUTE MORON category.

This is paranoid schizophrenia. You need medical help. See a doctor. If you're already seeing a doctor, take your meds.

 

[EMH]

This is paranoid schizophrenia. You need medical help. See a doctor. If you're already seeing a doctor, take your meds.

Notice the truth about the Co2 FRAUD and this is the response...

LOL!!

The TRUTH of the DATA....

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in CANES
NO OCEAN RISE

 

[Crick]

Notice the truth about the Co2 FRAUD and this is the response...

LOL!!

The TRUTH of the DATA....

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in CANES
NO OCEAN RISE

They're in an amber plastic bottle in your mother's medicine cabinet. Ask her to help you with it. Really.

 

[justoffal]

It is often said that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” that human activity is causing global warming, which is regularly supported by fact-check articles.

However, this slogan has been challenged by a number of prominent scientists over the years. Esteemed physicist and 2022 Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser recently stated he does not believe there is a man-made global warming crisis. Scientist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman also championed his belief that “there is no significant man-made global warming” before his death in 2018.

Most recently, American climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology says this so-called scientific consensus is “manufactured.” Published in over a hundred scientific papers, Curry’s decades-long research includes hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

Curry argues this false slogan about an “overwhelming consensus” has been fueled by scientists who pursue “fame and fortune.” Scientists who study man-made global warming are more likely to be quoted in popular culture while receiving celebrity-like status and lucrative grants from the federal government.

This has created “climate hysteria” among the general public, it but isn’t believed by scientists like Curry.

America Insider is under construction

The Pulse of America

www.americainsider.org

Comment:
The Left uses Climate Change fear to control dumb people.
There is no scientific consensus.
There is no climate crisis.

But RACISM! WINDMILLS! CORAL REEFS! SOMEBODY SHUT THIS WOMAN UP! HELLLLLLLP! ITS TREASON! HELLLLLLLLLLLP! WHERE IS THE GESSTAPPO WHEN YOU NEED THEM?? SOMEBODY QUICK CALL UNCLE LYSENKO!

 

[ChemEngineer]

One of my many websites:

Climate Change Cult

climate-change-cult.blogspot.com

 

[Crick]

One of my many websites:

Climate Change Cult

climate-change-cult.blogspot.com

One of my many rejections of your bigoted ignorance.

 

[ding]

One of my many rejections of your bigoted ignorance.

Their predictions would be more realistic and honest if they excluded the positive feedbacks that they can't prove exist. Or at a minimum if they showed the components so we all could see how ridiculous the feedbacks are.

 

[Dagosa]

Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technolog

Hmmmm, wonder what the Georgia institute of technology has to say about climate change. You telling us that they are wrong and give out diplomas based upon fake news ? So much for Judy’s credentials.

 

[ding]

Hmmmm, wonder what the Georgia institute of technology has to say about climate change. You telling us that they are wrong and give out diplomas based upon fake news ? So much for Judy’s credentials.

If GT believes in AGW, they have mistaken a natural warming trend - of which the geologic record is littered with examples - for AGW.

 

[Crick]

Most recently, American climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology says this so-called scientific consensus is “manufactured.” Published in over a hundred scientific papers, Curry’s decades-long research includes hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

Judith Curry retired from the University of Georgia six years ago. Is this opinion of hers that old or are you lying about her status?

 

[Crick]

The scientific consensus that the world is warming and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause is quite real and very well established. The uninformed opinions of a small, biased and select group do not overthrow the multiple, peer-reviewed studies that show an almost unanimous consensus among active, publishing climate scientists.

 

[ding]

The scientific consensus that the world is warming and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause is quite real and very well established. The uninformed opinions of a small, biased and select group do not overthrow the multiple, peer-reviewed studies that show an almost unanimous consensus among active, publishing climate scientists.

How do you know they haven't mistaken a natural climate fluctuation - which the geologic record is littered with - for AGW?

 

[Captain Caveman]

The scientific consensus that the world is warming and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause is quite real and very well established. The uninformed opinions of a small, biased and select group do not overthrow the multiple, peer-reviewed studies that show an almost unanimous consensus among active, publishing climate scientists.

Peer review doesn't replicate any experiments.

Co2 follows warming, always has done over the millions and billions of years in the past, it's currently doing it, and it will follow the same pattern over the millions and billions of years to come.

As a side note, did you know that producing 500g of synthetic material for clothing produces more co2 then driving an ICE vehicle 2,000km.

 

[Crick]

Peer review doesn't replicate any experiments.

Co2 follows warming, always has done over the millions and billions of years in the past, it's currently doing it, and it will follow the same pattern over the millions and billions of years to come.

As a side note, did you know that producing 500g of synthetic material for clothing produces more co2 then driving an ICE vehicle 2,000km.

Peer review doesn't replicate any experiments.

It can and does.

Co2 follows warming, always has done over the millions and billions of years in the past, it's currently doing it, and it will follow the same pattern over the millions and billions of years to come.

Of course it will. So what? It will also cause warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect.

As a side note, did you know that producing 500g of synthetic material for clothing produces more co2 then driving an ICE vehicle 2,000km.

Do you have some evidence supporting that statement?

Let's see what we can find out.



"It is estimated that a light passenger vehicle burning 1 liter of fuel, releases 3 kg of CO2." -- How Much CO2 Does a Car Emit per Mile: List by Type, Size, Energy Source

Let's assume this light passenger vehicle gets 30 miles/gallon. That would be (30/3.78541) or 7.925 miles per liter. 2,000 km is 1242.742 miles. So, driving 2,000 km will require that this vehicle burn 156.8 liters of fuel. That will produce 470 kg of CO2

You don't specify what synthetic material you're talking about. It could be polyester, nylon, rayon, acrylic, etc. Let's look at polyester.

"High Energy Use

• Polyester requires high amounts of energy to produce.
• According to CO, the energy required to produce polyester (125 MJ of energy per kilogram produced) and the greenhouse gas emitted (14.2 kg of CO 2 per kilogram produced) make it a high-impact process."

-- CFDA.

"1 GJ of natural gas will produce 50 kg of CO2" --https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/155547/how-much-co2-is-produced-when-burning-1gj-of-natural-gas

So, creating 125 MJ from natural gas will release 6.25 kg of CO2

So, creating 0.5 kg of polyester will produce a total of (14.2/2) + (6.25/2) = 10.225 kg of CO2 versus the 470 kg produced by a light passenger vehicle traveling 2,000 km.

You were wrong by a factor of almost 46.

Quote Reply Crick
Report Edit Delete

 

[Crick]

Let's see what we can find out.

"It is estimated that a light passenger vehicle burning 1 liter of fuel, releases 3 kg of CO2." -- How Much CO2 Does a Car Emit per Mile: List by Type, Size, Energy Source
Let's assume this light passenger vehicle gets 30 miles/gallon. That would be (30/3.78541) or 7.925 miles per liter. 2,000 km is 1242.742 miles. So, driving 2,000 km will require that this vehicle burn 156.8 liters of fuel. That will produce 470 kg of CO2

You don't specify what synthetic material you're talking about. It could be polyester, nylon, rayon, acrylic, etc. Let's look at polyester.

"High Energy Use

• Polyester requires high amounts of energy to produce.
• According to CO, the energy required to produce polyester (125 MJ of energy per kilogram produced) and the greenhouse gas emitted (14.2 kg of CO 2 per kilogram produced) make it a high-impact process."

-- CFDA.

"1 GJ of natural gas will produce 50 kg of CO2" --https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/155547/how-much-co2-is-produced-when-burning-1gj-of-natural-gas

So, creating 125 MJ from natural gas will release 6.25 kg of CO2

So, creating 0.5 kg of polyester will produce a total of (14.2/2) + (6.25/2) = 10.225 kg of CO2 versus the 470 kg produced by a light passenger vehicle traveling 2,000 km.

You were wrong by a factor of almost 46.

Quote Reply Crick
Report Edit Delete

So, do you have some supporting resources that indicate something else to be the case or is your silence an admission that you were wrong but don't care?

 

[Seymour Flops]

What are three areas in which we are asked/demanded to accept a "scientific consensus" instead of - and even in contradiction of - actual science?

1) Global Warming
2) Various COVID measures
3) Transgenderism for children

We're not asked to accept any consensus about the earth being round, or about the theory of relativity, for example. Instead, we are told easy ways that we can prove to ourselves, that the world is round, and we are told of multiple experiments, replicated multiple times that show that relativity is a more likely explanation for what we experience as gravity than Newton's postulated force of gravity.

Global warming theory rarely makes predictions anymore, each one having been fallen by that wayside as deadlines for the direly predicted catastrophes come and go.

Even at that, if someone insists that the Earth is flat, or if someone still believes in the "force of gravity" as many do, there is no movement to cancel them, or other wise sanction them in order to force them to either be silent or come in line with the dogma.

What do the three ideas above have in common? They are all part of a highly agendized set a political beliefs. No coincidence that global warming alarmists concentrate their ire and their expectations exclusively on the U.S., giving far greater polluters like China, India, and Russia, a pass. Not only giving them a pass but shifting the production of carbon to them, which they are glad to take, seeing how profitable it is.

No coincidence that so many measures taken against COVID fit so neatly into the Democrat agenda. Gay bath houses allowed to remain open, with churches threatened if they held services in their parking lot, with worshipers remaining in their cars. Election rules re-written in ways that favored those willing to use mail-in and mass drop off of ballots to cheat. Ivermectin scorned and ridiculed for no other reason than that Trump spoke favorably of it. Now that so much evidence is piling up on the effectivess of Ivermectin, what do you think of the apology from the scorners? Sincere, but begrudging? Insincere? Oh . . . non-existent, that's right.

As with global warming, the "scientific consensus" that chemical castration of children saves lives, as does double mastectomies of healthy teenage breasts comes entirely from the "scientists" who profit from such ghasty procedures. There is certainly consensus among those profiteers, but the science comes down to a single "study" of a self-selected survey designed to get the desired results.

 

[Crick]

What are three areas in which we are asked/demanded to accept a "scientific consensus" instead of - and even in contradiction of - actual science?

1) Global Warming

Global warming is fully supported by science.

2) Various COVID measures

mRNA vaccines work and are fully supported by medical science. Dexamethasone, Remdesivir and Baricitinib work and are fully supported by medical science. The same cannot be said for hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, insulin, zinc, vitamin C or the injection of bleach into the body. Treatments are accepted by medical science when they are demonstrated to be safe and effective. Treatments are rejected by medical science when they are shown to be ineffective and/or dangerous.

3) Transgenderism for children

There is a very small percentage of newborns who have indeterminant or misidentified gender. Denying those children proper, mainstream medical care is simply ignorant barbarism.

We're not asked to accept any consensus about the earth being round, or about the theory of relativity, for example.

You most certainly are. Scientific consensus is simply another name for accepted science.

Instead, we are told easy ways that we can prove to ourselves, that the world is round, and we are told of multiple experiments, replicated multiple times that show that relativity is a more likely explanation for what we experience as gravity than Newton's postulated force of gravity.

There are easy ways to show that the world is not flat but they do not reveal its actual shape (oblate spheroid). And there are thought experiments that lead us to relativity but no actual experiments that you could conduct in your kitchen. What you're saying here is that we should only believe simple science. An enormous proportion of the world's scientific knowledge is NOT simple and is NOT intuitive or obvious or easily reasoned. That is why scientific research, scientific studies, scientific publications are conducted by very intelligent people who work very hard at it. It's not easy and rejecting global warming because YOU don't seem to understand it has no validity at all.

Global warming theory rarely makes predictions anymore

Bullshit.

each one having been fallen by that wayside as deadlines for the direly predicted catastrophes come and go

Bullshit.

Even at that, if someone insists that the Earth is flat, or if someone still believes in the "force of gravity" as many do, there is no movement to cancel them, or other wise sanction them in order to force them to either be silent or come in line with the dogma.

There is precisely the same reaction in all such cases: the educated public will conclude that your someone is ignorant.

What do the three ideas above have in common? They are all part of a highly agendized set a political beliefs.

Bullshit. They are the conclusions of mainstream science. Politicians may make all manner of use of them, but the findings of science do not have political intent. The reality of global warming, the effectiveness of vaccines and the fact that not all newborns have clear cut genders are true inside every nation on this planet no matter the form of their government. They have NOTHING to do with politics.

No coincidence that global warming alarmists concentrate their ire and their expectations exclusively on the U.S.

How do you get this stupid? Americans have more concern about the US because it's our nation and as a democracy, we're in control of it and thus responsible for it's actions (like Trump's idiocy). In general, on the topic of global warming, scientists and activists are concerned about the choices and actions of all nations. The Kyoto protocol, the Rio declaration and the Paris accords were not unilateral US products but agreed plans of action between all the nations of the planet.

giving far greater polluters like China, India, and Russia, a pass. Not only giving them a pass but shifting the production of carbon to them, which they are glad to take, seeing how profitable it is.

Paanoid jingoistic bullshit

No coincidence that so many measures taken against COVID fit so neatly into the Democratic agenda.

I am really curious what vaccinations, masks, distancing and avoiding crowds have to do with any Democratic agenda

Gay bath houses allowed to remain open, with churches threatened if they held services in their parking lot, with worshipers remaining in their cars.

Did the CDC specifically state that gay bath houses were okay? Were you expecting them to give waivers to religious organizations? And, again, what does even that have to do with any Democratic agenda?

Election rules re-written in ways that favored those willing to use mail-in and mass drop off of ballots to cheat.

Election rules were not re-written to enable cheating; you have zero evidence to support that or that the increased use of mail-in ballots led to any increase in voter fraud in any state of the union. Mail-in and absentee balloting was encouraged to prevent the spread of a deadly, communicable disease.

Ivermectin scorned and ridiculed for no other reason than that Trump spoke favorably of it.

Ivermectin, used to treat parasitic worms, has been floated as a potential COVID-19 treatment, but research does not support its use. A study published March 4 found it did not shorten the time someone had symptoms of COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health says it can neither recommend nor suggest against using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19, while the FDA strongly recommends against using the drug, particularly in the form designed to be used in animals.

Now that so much evidence is piling up on the effectivess of Ivermectin, what do you think of the apology from the scorners?

What evidence? What apology?

Sincere, but begrudging? Insincere? Oh . . . non-existent, that's right.

Good. There was never anything to apologize for.

Ivermectin shown ineffective in treating COVID-19, according to multi-site study including KU Medical Center

Results of the study of the antiparasitic medication, once a much-discussed potential treatment for COVID-19, were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

www.kumc.edu

Does ivermectin have a place in the treatment of mild Covid-19?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Higher-Dose Ivermectin vs Placebo and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19

This platform randomized clinical trial examines the effectiveness of ivermectin at a targeted dose of 600 μg/kg daily compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2115869

At a Higher Dose and Longer Duration, Ivermectin Still Not Effective Against COVID-19

A Cochrane meta-analysis of 11 eligible trials examining the efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 published through April 2022 concluded that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19.1 Since May 2022, an additional 3 large randomized clinical trials including...

jamanetwork.com

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

Using the Drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19 can be dangerous and even lethal. The FDA has not approved the drug for that purpose.

www.fda.gov

Study supports evidence ivermectin is ineffective at treating COVID-19

PLATCOV, a platform to assess the effectiveness of drugs against COVID-19, suggests that ivermectin has no significant antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2.

elifesciences.org

As with global warming, the "scientific consensus" that chemical castration of children saves lives, as does double mastectomies of healthy teenage breasts comes entirely from the "scientists" who profit from such ghasty procedures.

I have never heard anyone suggest that chemical castration of children saves lives. Chemical castration is a temporary effect in any case and is widely used in the treatment of prostate cancer. I've neither heard of any suggesting mastectomies of healthy breasts unless you're talking about women with mutated BRCA-1 or-2 genes who have very high likelihoods of developing malignant breast tumors. So, as has been the case in every statement you've made so far: you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

There is certainly consensus among those profiteers, but the science comes down to a single "study" of a self-selected survey designed to get the desired results.

The science of global warming is supported by thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed studies conducted and written by tens of thousands of degreed scientists from every nation in the world. If you're talking about consensus studies, there have been many and they show support for the IPCC conclusions to be extremely close to completely unanimous.

You're a fucking idiot.