Leftist politicians are still trying to push the MMGW Hoax. It's a political scam to redistribute wealth.

[jc456]

Apparently nothing you're interested in learning.

Or you’re willing to highlight as fact

 

[Dagosa]

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE CLIMATE. IT IS ABOUT THE BIGGEST POLITICAL SCAM IN HISTORY.




In short, our liberal politicians in the US and around the world are running the biggest scam in history in order to bankrupt the US and transfer wealth to "developing" countries like China.


That's right, the biggest polluter on the planet by far, China, qualifies for the latest handout Biden announced this week. Please tell me the science behind that.

Please look at the MMGW Cult track record:

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True​

Current climate predictions can be terrifying if you don't know about the previous dire climate claims that amounted to nothing.


If you’re under 50, there’s a good chance you’re expecting to see climate change create chaos and death in your lifetime. Scientists and pundits seem so certain we’re headed for global collapse and their predictions can be terrifying—especially if you’re young enough not to remember the last dozen times they predicted imminent collapse and were wrong. In each case, claims of impending environmental disaster were backed by allegedly irrefutable data and policymakers were encouraged to act before it was too late.

Global Cooling​

The Prediction: Top climate specialists and environmental activists predicted that “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and 1970 would result in a world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 ... about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Bitter winters and floods from “delayed typhoons” would trigger massive drops in food production, followed by widespread famine.

The Prophecies:

• Newsweek Magazine’s "The Cooling World" Peter Gwynne April 28, 1975
• Time Magazine’s “A New Ice Age?” April 28, 1974
• BBC’s Nigel Calder International Wildlife magazine, 1975
• Betty Friedan in Harper’s magazine, 1958
• University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1974

What Actually Happened: Global cooling trends didn’t continue unabated, and temperatures stabilized. Within a few years, the same alarmists were predicting a life-threatening rise in temperatures, presaging many of the same dire effects on plant and animal life. Those new predictions were continually revised as their “near certainty” collided with the truth year after year, but prophets seem unchastened by their abysmal historical accuracy. Newsweek issued a correction to the 1975 article in 2006.

The Great Die-Off​

The Prediction: More women having babies in the developing world was expected to exceed the “carrying capacity” of the earth, experts were certain. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supply we make,” Ehrlich said. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [1970-1980].” Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” This would lead to “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

The Prophecies:

• Paul Erlich, The Progressive, Earth Day 1970
• The Population Bomb, 1968 Bestseller

What Actually Happened: Motivated by the urgent call for population control and fears of famine, India and China performed millions of forced abortions and sterilizations. But the number of people at risk of starvation dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent globally as genetically modified seeds and advances in irrigation improved crop yields. Far from the Great Die-Off, the global population nearly doubled while agricultural capacity soared and rates of starvation plummeted. Ehrlich’s star has continued to rise, though his signature predictions were nonsense, and now holds an endowed chair in Population Studies at Stanford. The millions scapegoated by his fear-mongering have not fared as well.

Pollution Particle Clouds​

The Prediction: Ecologists and environmentalists claimed that the buildup of nitrogen, dust, fumes, and other forms of pollution would make the air unbreathable by the mid-1980s. They predicted all urban dwellers would have to don gas masks to survive, that particle clouds would block the majority of sunlight from reaching earth, and that farm yields would drop as dust blotted out the sun.

The Prophecies:

• Ecologist Kenneth Watt
• Life Magazine, 1970
• Newsweek Magazine, 1970
• Science News, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization, 1975

What Actually Happened: When these doomsayers were pronouncing the imminent death of our atmosphere, the rate of air pollution had already been falling for most of the world, usually in the absence of dedicated policy changes. Developments like air filtration, as well as an overall decline in household pollutants (like the smoke from cooking with coal or wood) greatly reduced the health risks of the particles that remained. Increased adoption of fossil fuels and electricity grids, rather than traditional stoves, accelerated the improvements.

75 Percent of Species Will Go Extinct​

The Prediction: Alleged experts in biology and zoology predicted that of all species of animals alive in 1970, at least 75 percent would be extinct by 1995. They blamed human activities like hunting and farming for shrinking wild habitats and cited pollution and climate change as key drivers of the new extinctions. Paul Ehrlich claimed “[By 1985] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct."

The Prophecies:

• Sen. Gaylord Nelson, Look Magazine
• Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute
• The Sinking Ark 1979, Oxford biologist Norman Myers

What Actually Happened: You may have noticed that earth has not lost three-quarters of its 8.7 million species, and indeed total biomass continues to grow. 99 percent of all species that have ever existed are already extinct, and natural rates of extinction predict we might lose anywhere from 200 to 2,000 species per year without any human intervention. Since 2000, we’ve identified fewer than 20.

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism. Before we make unprecedented sacrifices to fight a climate phantom, let’s review the credibility of claims that the end is near—but really, this time.

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism.

fee.org

Now for a prediction that will come true, leftists will come into this thread whining and crying about the source without being able to refute any of the facts contained in this OP.

More to come........

Hilarious. In all that BS, you’ve not made one complete quote, just quotes out of context and rambling.

 

[Dagosa]

But both sides care more about their partisan ambitions than solving problems.

Wrong. One side uses science the other uses BS.

 

[Dagosa]

1995 to Present: Climate Model Failure

Source: CEI.org

2000: ‘Children won’t know what snow is.’

Source: The Independent, March 20, 2000

2002: Famine in 10 years

Source: The Guardian, December 23, 2002

2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020

Source: The Guardian, February 21, 2004

2008: Arctic will be ice-free by 2018

Source: Associated Press, June 24, 2008

2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013

But… it’s still there:

Source: WattsUpWithThat.com, December 16, 2018

2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet

Source: The Independent, July 9, 2009

2009: UK prime minister says 50 days to ‘save the planet from catastrophe’

Source: The Independent: October 20, 2009

2009: Arctic ice-free by 2014

Source: USA Today, December 14, 2009

2013: Arctic ice-free by 2015

Source: The Guardian, July 24, 2013

The paper: Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming - Nature Communications (open access)

Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming

Abstract

Methane seepage from the upper continental slopes of Western Svalbard has previously been attributed to gas hydrate dissociation induced by anthropogenic warming of ambient bottom waters. Here we show that sediment cores drilled off Prins Karls Foreland contain freshwater from dissociating hydrates. However, our modeling indicates that the observed pore water freshening began around 8 ka BP when the rate of isostatic uplift outpaced eustatic sea-level rise. The resultant local shallowing and lowering of hydrostatic pressure forced gas hydrate dissociation and dissolved chloride depletions consistent with our geochemical analysis. Hence, we propose that hydrate dissociation was triggered by postglacial isostatic rebound rather than anthropogenic warming. Furthermore, we show that methane fluxes from dissociating hydrates were considerably smaller than present methane seepage rates implying that gas hydrates were not a major source of methane to the oceans, but rather acted as a dynamic seal, regulating methane release from deep geological reservoirs.



2013: Arctic ice-free by 2016

Source: The Guardian, December 9, 2013

What a waste of internet space.

 

[jc456]

Wrong. One side uses science the other uses BS.

Nonsense

 

[jc456]

What a waste of internet space.

You are

 

[Crick]

From Pg 41 of the Technical Summary, Working Group I, Assessment Report 6 of the IPCC

Human influence on the climate system is now an established fact: The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) stated in 2007 that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’, and AR5 stated in 2013 that ‘human influence on the climate system is clear’. Combined evidence from across the climate system strengthens this finding. It is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the main driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere.

I'd provide a link but I got this from my local copy.

 

[jc456]

From Pg 41 of the Technical Summary, Working Group I, Assessment Report 6 of the IPCC

Human influence on the climate system is now an established fact: The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) stated in 2007 that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’, and AR5 stated in 2013 that ‘human influence on the climate system is clear’. Combined evidence from across the climate system strengthens this finding. It is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the main driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere.

I'd provide a link but I got this from my local copy.

Vital context check "First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi-expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

mamooth will explain how the 2 highlighted sentences negate my summarized presentation "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

Take it away!

 

[Crick]

Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with the text I posted. Did you think that they did or were you still just trolling?

TROLL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From Pg 41 of the Technical Summary, Working Group I, Assessment Report 6 of the IPCC

Human influence on the climate system is now an established fact: The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) stated in 2007 that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’, and AR5 stated in 2013 that ‘human influence on the climate system is clear’. Combined evidence from across the climate system strengthens this finding. It is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the main driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere.

I'd provide a link but I got this from my local copy.

In other news, Bernie Madoff double checked his audits and agrees that the accountants got it all right!

 

[ding]

From Pg 41 of the Technical Summary, Working Group I, Assessment Report 6 of the IPCC

Human influence on the climate system is now an established fact: The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) stated in 2007 that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’, and AR5 stated in 2013 that ‘human influence on the climate system is clear’. Combined evidence from across the climate system strengthens this finding. It is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the main driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere.

I'd provide a link but I got this from my local copy.

Saying that "Human influence on the climate system is now an established fact" is the antithesis of science. And untrue.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[jc456]

Saying that "Human influence on the climate system is now an established fact" is the antithesis of science. And untrue.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Dagosa]

Exxon has signed up with renewables to cut their cost of electricity. It seems pumping and refining oil is too expensive for them to use oil to generate the electricity for it.

But keep denying the obvious. Even Exxon wants a cut of all that wealth generated by lower energy costs. Redistribution ? Exactly. The stupid pay more, and the more aware pay less. It’s a redistribution of wealth from the ignorant to the educated. It’s generally true true since time began.

 

[jc456]

Exxon has signed up with renewables to cut their cost of electricity. It seems pumping and refining oil is too expensive for them to use oil to generate the electricity for it.

But keep denying the obvious. Even Exxon wants a cut of all that wealth generated by lower energy costs. Redistribution ? Exactly. The stupid pay more, and the more aware pay less. It’s a redistribution of wealth from the ignorant to the educated. It’s generally true true since time began.

Never going to win that one. What experts actually know.