The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[jc456]

He's got a point Crick....
They did give him a bit too much cred...even after he attacked his masseuse!

doesn't change the fact he was one for them.

 

[Crick]

Who said anything about the "law"??

You did when you accused Gore of having a conflict of interest.

When a "private citizen" abuses their political connections to amass enormous wealth, that's a problem chief. None of your bullshit here masks that reality.

Then you despise Trump, right?

 

[P@triot]

You did when you accused Gore of having a conflict of interest.

It's so easy to see why you are so easily duped by the "Global Warming" hoax

You can have a zillion "conflicts of interest" in life that have absolutely nothing to do with a law.

 

[Crick]

The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.

A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that 97.4% never materialized.

This link doesn't work. It leads to a page that says:

"Some older content has been removed from this site after The Western Journal implemented stricter editorial standards. The vast majority of the archived content does meet the new standards, but we are committed to providing you with only the most accurate and truthful content we can, and therefore have archived some articles pending further review. As time and resources permit, we may republish such content as meets our current guidelines."

I will bet a dollar to a donut that Nature Climate Change never published any such article and that's why Western Journal pulled it.

• Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

Ehrlich has no credibility as any sort of climate scientist. He was a biologist and ecologist.

• In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

This might have come true had the Clean Air Act not been passed later than same year.

• In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.” We made it.

"Total frying pan". Is that a quantitative term? Is Al Gore a scientist?

• In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015.

ABC News. Is that where you get your science?

• In 1970, ecologist Kenneth E.F. Watt predicted that “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

Ecologists have zero training in any of the fields that might allow an accurate prediction on this topic.

• In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had expanded over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)

• On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.

Do you have any evidence that it is NOT too late?

• In 2009, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Wassen warned that Obama only had four years left to save the earth.

Ditto

• On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75% and 80% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

He was correct

• And another Earth Day prediction from Kenneth Watt: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

Top 10 Climate Change Predictions Gone Spectacularly Wrong; This Is EPIC!

The actual predictions from climate scientists are quite simple:

1) CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to increase: TRUE
2) Global temperatures will continue to increase: TRUE
3) Sea level will continue to rise: TRUE
4) Deniers will never learn: TRUE

 

[Crick]

It's so easy to see why you are so easily duped by the "Global Warming" hoax

You can have a zillion "conflicts of interest" in life that have absolutely nothing to do with a law.

Then what the fuck is your point?

 

[ralfy]

So, again, you prefer climate “scientists” funded by grifters like Al Gore?

Berkeley Earth was funded by deniers like the Koch Foundation, but their conclusions are the same as those of the NAS.

 

[ralfy]

Not really. It was funded by the Koch bros. And while they made their money on energy production, they are quite happy to use the power of government to kill off their competitors.

Berkeley Earth was set up to debunk AGW. It ended up doing the opposite.

 

[ralfy]

No…instead he funded the faux “science” that you push 24x7. Funding it has made him a billionaire as Chicken Little’s such as yourself cry “the sky is falling”

The problem is that in place of that "faux 'science'" debunkers set up Berkeley Earth, and the latter ended up confirming AGW.

 

[westwall]

Berkeley Earth was set up to debunk AGW. It ended up doing the opposite.

Not really. The leader of the "study" used the same data sets as everyone else and he also owned a "sustainability" company so his very economic well being DEPENDED on him reaching the conclusion he did.

The second a person benefits monetarily from their declarations, their opinions no longer matter.

 

[westwall]

The problem is that in place of that "faux 'science'" debunkers set up Berkeley Earth, and the latter ended up confirming AGW.

Only if you don't bother to look at their metrics.

Their study got torn to shreds in the public science forums.

 

[Crick]

Only if you don't bother to look at their metrics.

Their study got torn to shreds in the public science forums.

Did it? Can you show us a link to some of that shredding?

From the Wikipedia article on their study at Berkeley Earth - Wikipedia

Initial results​

After completing the analysis of the full land temperature data set, consisting of more than 1.6 billion temperature measurements dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world, and originated from more than 39,000 temperature stations worldwide, the group submitted four papers for peer-review and publication in scientific journals. The Berkeley Earth study did not assess temperature changes in the oceans, nor try to assess how much of the observed warming is due to human action.[9] The Berkeley Earth team also released the preliminary findings to the public on October 20, 2011, in order to promote additional scrutiny. The data sets and programs used to analyze the information, and the papers undergoing peer review were also made available to the public.[7][8][9]

The Berkeley Earth study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The team's initial conclusions are the following:[7][8][9][10]

• The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre and NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. The team found that the urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise, as the planet's urban regions amount to less than 1% of the land area. The study also found that while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.
• Global temperatures closely matched previous studies from NASA GISS, NOAA and the Hadley Centre, that have found global warming trends. The Berkeley Earth group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911 °C, just 2% less than NOAA's estimate. The team scientific director stated that "...this confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."[7]
• About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world with records of 70 years or longer reported cooling (including much of the United States and northern Europe). But 2/3 of the sites show warming. Individual temperature histories reported from a single location are frequently noisy and/or unreliable, and it is always necessary to compare and combine many records to understand the true pattern of global warming.
• The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) has played a larger role than previously thought. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is generally thought to be the main reason for inter-annual warming or cooling, but the Berkeley Earth team's analysis found that the global temperature correlates more closely with the state of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index, which is a measure of sea surface temperature in the north Atlantic.

The Berkeley Earth analysis uses a new methodology and was tested against much of the same data as NOAA and NASA. The group uses an algorithm that attaches an automatic weighting to every data point, according to its consistency with comparable readings. The team claims this approach allows the inclusion of outlandish readings without distorting the result and standard statistical techniques were used to remove outliers. The methodology also avoids traditional procedures that require long, continuous data segments, thus accommodating for short sequences, such as those provided by temporary weather stations. This innovation allowed the group to compile an earlier record than its predecessors, starting from 1800, but with a high degree of uncertainty because at the time there were only two weather stations in America, just a few in Europe and one in Asia.[8][16]

Reactions​

Given project leader Muller's well-publicised concerns regarding the quality of climate change research, other critics anticipated that the Berkeley Earth study would be a vindication of their stance. For example, when the study team was announced, Anthony Watts, a climate change denialist blogger who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, expressed full confidence in the team's methods:

I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. ... [T]he method isn't the madness that we've seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren't any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. ... That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we've seen yet.
— Anthony Watts[17]

When the initial results were released, and found to support the existing consensus, the study was widely decried by deniers. Watts spoke to The New York Times, which wrote: "Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."[18][19] Steven Mosher, a co-author of a book critical of climate scientists, also disapproved saying that the study still lacked transparency. He said: "I'm not happy until the code is released and released in a language that people can use freely."[18] Stephen McIntyre, editor of Climate Audit, a climato-skeptics blog, said that "the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work" and even though he had not had an opportunity to read the papers in detail, he questioned the analyses of urban heating and weather station quality.[16][20]

By contrast, the study was well received by Muller's peers in climate science research. James Hansen, a leading climate scientist and head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies commented that he had not yet read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue. He said "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming."[10] Phil Jones the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, said: "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published. These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."[10] Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, commented that "...they get the same result that everyone else has gotten," and "that said, I think it's at least useful to see that even a critic like Muller, when he takes an honest look, finds that climate science is robust."[20] Peter Thorne, from the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in North Carolina and chair of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, said: "This takes a very distinct approach to the problem and comes up with the same answer, and that builds confidence that pre-existing estimates are in the right ballpark. There is very substantial value in having multiple groups looking at the same problem in different ways."[10] The ice core research scientist Eric Steig wrote at RealClimate.org that it was unsurprising that Berkeley Earth's results matched previous results so well: "Any of various simple statistical analyses of the freely available data ...show... that it was very very unlikely that the results would change".[21]

 

[P@triot]

Ehrlich has no credibility as any sort of climate scientist. He was a biologist and ecologist.

Bingo! Nor does Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, Barack Obama, or any of the other nut-jobs you people roll out as “experts”.

History has proven all of your idols wrong. The debate is over. The grift has been exposed. It’s time for you guys to try a new grift.

 

[P@triot]

This might have come true had the Clean Air Act not been passed later than same year.

Weird. All it took was one tiny piece of toothless legislation to save mankind?

"Total frying pan". Is that a quantitative term? Is Al Gore a scientist?

Nope! And yet all of you leftists won’t stop listening to him and bowing to him on his bullshit.

ABC News. Is that where you get your science?

Ecologists have zero training in any of the fields that might allow an accurate prediction on this topic.

And yet the left keeps turning to them to bolster their “Global Warming” grift. Until history proves them all wrong. Then you people backpedal and throw them under the bus as you’re doing right now.

Do you have any evidence that it is NOT too late?

Yes. It’s called reality

History has already proven time and time again that there is no problem. None.

The actual predictions from climate scientists are quite simple:

1) CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to increase: TRUE

1a. With zero evidence that it impacts the climate (or the planet) in any capacity whatsoever

2) Global temperatures will continue to increase: TRUE

2a. After coming off of more than a decade of a global cooling period. Both that cooling and the current “warming” were accurately predicted as both are part of a consistent pattern that has been tracked for centuries. The planet will begin cooling in the near future and you’ll look like an imbecile for crying “the sky is falling”

3) Sea level will continue to rise: TRUE

3a. Will New York City be under the ocean as it was supposed to be in 2014???

4) Deniers will never learn: TRUE

4a. To accept the grift? Correct! We will never be duped into learning to accept Al Gore’s grift!

 

[P@triot]

Then what the fuck is your point?

My point is it’s a major conflict of interest for Al Gore to be heavily & deeply invested in “green tech” and then influence public policy to mandate green tech.

It proves it’s a grift. Amazing you believe whatever he spoon feeds you

 

[P@triot]

The problem is that in place of that "faux 'science'" debunkers set up Berkeley Earth, and the latter ended up confirming AGW.

Exactly!! Proved it’s a grift.

 

[ralfy]

Not really. The leader of the "study" used the same data sets as everyone else and he also owned a "sustainability" company so his very economic well being DEPENDED on him reaching the conclusion he did.

The second a person benefits monetarily from their declarations, their opinions no longer matter.

One of the main funders of the organization is the Koch Foundation.

There are no other data sets to consider except those in your imagination.

 

[ralfy]

Only if you don't bother to look at their metrics.

Their study got torn to shreds in the public science forums.

"Metrics".

And torn to shreds in "public science forums".

The level of delusion is high with this one.

 

[ralfy]

Exactly!! Proved it’s a grift.

And funded by deniers.

 

[Crick]

Bingo! Nor does Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, Barack Obama, or any of the other nut-jobs you people roll out as “experts”.

But we DON'T roll them out as experts. YOU DO. This is a classic straw man argument.

History has proven all of your idols wrong. The debate is over. The grift has been exposed. It’s time for you guys to try a new grift.

What has been proven is that you have nothing with which to counter the decades of published, peer-reviewed mainstream science conducted by thousands of PhD climate scientists and so you resort to this sort of bullshit.

 

[Crick]

Weird. All it took was one tiny piece of toothless legislation to save mankind?

I see you're unfamiliar with the Clean Air Act

Nope! And yet all of you leftists won’t stop listening to him [Al Gore] and bowing to him on his bullshit.

This looks like the DJT tactic of doubling down when caught slinging demonstrable bullshit. Deniers are the only ones who bring up Gore or Thunberg on this forum.

And yet the left keeps turning to them to bolster their “Global Warming” grift.

That is a lie.

Until history proves them all wrong.

History has not shown any such thing.

Then you people backpedal and throw them under the bus as you’re doing right now.

I think Al Gore is a great guy. I voted for him for president and I'd do it again if he ran. But he'd be the first one to tell you he's not a climate scientist.

Yes. It’s called reality

History has already proven time and time again that there is no problem. None.

And you are basing that on the many times when humans caused an enormous increase in CO2 and methane? When was that exactly?

1a. With zero evidence that it [continued increase of CO2] impacts the climate (or the planet) in any capacity whatsoever

www.ipcc.ch

2a. After coming off of more than a decade of a global cooling period. Both that cooling and the current “warming” were accurately predicted as both are part of a consistent pattern that has been tracked for centuries. The planet will begin cooling in the near future and you’ll look like an imbecile for crying “the sky is falling”

Look at that period from 1940 to 1975. Temperatures declined for decades but then what happened? The warming resumed. What you are terming our current cooling period is the two roughly equal peaks at the upper end of this graph. Meanwhile, contemporary temperatures around the world have skyrocketed, setting thousands of new records. We have a huge El Nino underway and temperatures in the North Atlantic are insanely high. Antarctica and Greenland are melting billions and billions of tons of water every year.

3a. Will New York City be under the ocean as it was supposed to be in 2014???

NYC has spent over $4 billion to counter rising sea levels there.

4a. To accept the grift? Correct! We will never be duped into learning to accept Al Gore’s grift!

You certainly demonstrate my point.