Global Warming Liars

[otto105]

How is it? Show me all the experiments

You can check with the Flat Earth Society.

 

[Billo_Really]

http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com

THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.

This lie is based on a 2009 article by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, then a student at the University of Illinois.
As stated in the Wall Street Journal, "The '97 percent' figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
The WSJ went on to elaborate further: "The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change."
So much for that lie one hears so often and so loudly.
THE LIE: Humans are causing catastrophic changes in earth's climate by burning fossil fuel and increasing carbon dioxide.
This lie is based on the extremely disingenuous and anti-scientific Keeling Curve, below.

This terribly misleading graph is intended to scare you into immediate action.
Just adding water vapor, which constitutes 1.5% of the atmosphere, or 15,000 parts per million, that graph above becomes this below, far more realistic, more honest, less misleading:


Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are omitted from graphs and discussion.
If in fact humans were the primary, or even major contributor to carbon dioxide production, then the highest concentrations of CO2 would be industrial and population centers around the globe, instead of the rain forests of Africa and South America:

THE LIE: Global catastrophe, "tipping point"! We must do something now!
This incredible lie is preached by Al Gore, the United Nations, bureaucracies beholden to research billions, and by Barack Obama. Obama recently flew on Air Force One from Washington, D.C. to California, to play a round of golf with his friends, the same way he uses Air Force One to fly to Democrat fund-raisers all over the U.S.
Preaching doom and gloom to you little people is what they do, but not what they practice themselves. At the most recent Global Warming Scare-Fest, in Davos, Switzerland, the Scare-Mongers flew 1,700 private jets, rather than videoconference. Don't do as they do, do as they say.
Net global emission of CO2 looks nothing like human production of CO2. Rather, CO2 is the product of temperature and soil moisture.


THE LIE: Big oil billions are driving "deniers"
Budget requests from a few of the U.S. government agencies for global warming "research" money, just in 2011:

NOAA $437 million
NSF $480 million
NASA $438 million
DOE $627 million
DOI $171 million
EPA $169 million
USDA $159 million

ON OCTOBER 6, 2010, UC SANTA BARBARA PHYSICS PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HAROLD LEWIS, RESIGNED FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY IN PROTEST OF THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD. HIS LETTER READS IN PART:“FOR REASONS THAT WILL SOON BECOME CLEAR MY FORMER PRIDE AT BEING AN APS FELLOW ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN TURNED INTO SHAME, AND I AM FORCED, WITH NO PLEASURE AT ALL, TO OFFER YOU MY RESIGNATION FROM THE SOCIETY. “IT IS OF COURSE, THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, WITH THE (LITERALLY) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DRIVING IT, THAT HAS CORRUPTED SO MANY SCIENTISTS, AND HAS CARRIED APS BEFORE IT LIKE A ROGUE WAVE. IT IS THE GREATEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC FRAUD I HAVE SEEN IN MY LONG LIFE AS A PHYSICIST. ANYONE WHO HAS THE FAINTEST DOUBT THAT THIS IS SO SHOULD FORCE HIMSELF TO READ THE CLIMATEGATE DOCUMENTS, WHICH LAY IT BARE. (MONTFORD’S BOOK ORGANIZES THE FACTS VERY WELL.) I DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANY REAL PHYSICIST, NAY SCIENTIST, CAN READ THAT STUFF WITHOUT REVULSION. I WOULD ALMOST MAKE THAT REVULSION A DEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENTIST. “SO WHAT HAS THE APS, AS AN ORGANIZATION, DONE IN THE FACE OF THIS CHALLENGE? IT HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRUPTION AS THE NORM, AND GONE ALONG WITH IT." - END OF QUOTE BY PROFESSOR LEWIS ​

​

NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS, IVER GIAIVER LIKEWISE RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 OVER THIS ONGOING SCANDAL PARADING AS "SCIENCE". IT IS ANYTHING BUT.​

THE LIE: Why would scientists lie! For money, and for cowardice. They don't want to be blackballed by other cowards.

You are nothing but a fossil fuel whore!

 

[ChemEngineer]

You are nothing but a fossil fuel whore!

Aren't you sophisticated, erudite and so very classy.

Four hundred private jets flew into Sharm El Sheikh Airport, Egypt, for the climate change hypocrite backslap fest, down from 1,400 at Davos, Switzerland a few years ago.

 

[jc456]

You can check with the Flat Earth Society.

Sounds like you should

 

[jc456]

When was that again?

Doesn’t oil exist? It’s nature right?

 

[jc456]

You are nothing but a fossil fuel whore!

What’s that mean? You don’t drive? Things delivered? Buy from stores? Hmmm you be calling yourself a fossil fuel horror if you are any of that

 

[ChemEngineer]

EV Cars Catch Fire, Repeatedly!

 

[jc456]

EV Cars Catch Fire, Repeatedly!

Can’t travel more than 150 miles without a five hour charge

 

[Crick]

EV Cars Catch Fire, Repeatedly!

While fires in lithium battery powered cars are intense and difficult to extinguish, they are relatively rare. Fires in vehicles with internal combustion engines occur eleven times as often, per capita, as fires in EVs.

 

[jc456]

While fires in lithium battery powered cars are intense and difficult to extinguish, they are relatively rare. Fires in vehicles with internal combustion engines occur eleven times as often, per capita, as fires in EVs.

Hahaha hahaha

 

[ChemEngineer]

Doesn’t oil exist? It’s nature right?

Sanctimonious climate change fanatics think that oil should remain thousands of feet underground, where it does absolutely no good. Meanwhile they continue to drive and enjoy the good life with all the hypocrisy of Al Gore, John Kerry, the Obamas, Hollywood Glitterati and all the rest of the green hypocrites.

 

[jc456]

Sanctimonious climate change fanatics think that oil should remain thousands of feet underground, where it does absolutely no good. Meanwhile they continue to drive and enjoy the good life with all the hypocrisy of Al Gore, John Kerry, the Obamas, Hollywood Glitterati and all the rest of the green hypocrites.

But it’s nature

 

[jc456]

But it’s nature

I’m still waiting on the alternative resources that can warm people!! Or is it people shouldn’t exist?

 

[Crick]

Sanctimonious climate change fanatics think that oil should remain thousands of feet underground, where it does absolutely no good. Meanwhile they continue to drive and enjoy the good life with all the hypocrisy of Al Gore, John Kerry, the Obamas, Hollywood Glitterati and all the rest of the green hypocrites.

It does enormous good for everyone to leave the oil where it is. The behavior of celebrities you don't like is completely and obviously irrelevant. That you think otherwise is just a good indicator of your personal qualities.

 

[ding]

When was that again?

The last interglacial cycle. Why don’t you know this?

 

[ding]

Reality is a unique dataset. Assuming equal competence, your conjection means that the two groups of scientists are not looking at equally accurate data.

The vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions (unsuprising since those conclusions are based on the work of those scientists). The vast majority of scientists do not feel that contrary views worthy of attention are being suppressed because, I suppose, they believe that the contrary opinions we've all seen simply AREN'T worthy of attention. The authors of those contrary opinions undoubtedly have a different point of view.

Their claims have yet to be refuted.

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey. They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.

2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned, BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.

3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries. Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.

BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.

Are you trying to say that there has been no volcanic eruptions since the industrial revolution began.

 

[Crick]

BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.

Are you trying to say that there has been no volcanic eruptions since the industrial revolution began.

Obviously not. That is why you see the word "virtually" in the statement of mine that you quoted. But humans have produced an order of magnitude more CO2 since the Industrial Revolution than all geological inputs combined.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Obviously not. That is why you see the word "virtually" in the statement of mine that you quoted. But humans have produced an order of magnitude more CO2 since the Industrial Revolution than all geological inputs combined.

Net Zero Shock: Carbon Dioxide Rises AFTER Temperature Increases, Scientists Find – The Daily Sceptic

Dramatic new findings from two climate science professors suggest that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a rise in temperature rather than coming before it and causing it.

dailysceptic.org

 

[jc456]

Obviously not. That is why you see the word "virtually" in the statement of mine that you quoted. But humans have produced an order of magnitude more CO2 since the Industrial Revolution than all geological inputs combined.

So, I'm wondering, if we are using resources from the planet that already exist, how is it we're adding?