The great global warming fraud

[schmidlap]

No, skippy. That would be you. You can't even understand the importance of the scientific method, so you spew logical fallacies by the trainload.

You persist in spewing your ideological dogma that is the basis for your contempt for science.

I have repeatedly invited anyone who is in denial of anthropogenic climate change to cite their contradictory data and their sources. They invariably won'r or can't.

Skulk away yet again if you must.

Why do you fantasize that respected scientific organizations such as NASA are all lying to you?

 

[westwall]

You persist in spewing your ideological dogma that is the basis for your contempt for science.

I have repeatedly invited anyone who is in denial of anthropogenic climate change to cite their contradictory data and their sources. They invariably won'r or can't.

Skulk away yet again if you must.

Why do you fantasize that respected scientific organizations such as NASA are all lying to you?

Unlike you, mr. Birdbrain, I AM a scientist. And I have been for longer than you've been alive I will wager.

The Scientific Method matters, you anti science religious nutjobs, are merely the modern day equivalent of the savages hurling virgins into volcanoes.

 

[schmidlap]

Unlike you, mr. Birdbrain, I AM a scientist. And I have been for longer than you've been alive I will wager.

The Scientific Method matters, you anti science religious nutjobs, are merely the modern day equivalent of the savages hurling virgins into volcanoes.

Lash out at me for respecting the concurring data analysis of actual climatologists, but you are apparently impotent In citing any climatological studies that support your denial - in compliance with accepted scientific methodology.

 

[EMH]

by climatologists

and the definition of that word is "whoever CNN IDs as one."

LOL!!!


Because you don't practice science, you don't understand science, you are just a beak and a birdbrain...

 

[westwall]

Lash out at me for respecting the concurring data analysis of actual climatologists, but you are apparently impotent In citing any climatological studies that support your denial - in compliance with accepted scientific methodology.

Oh, this isn't "lashing out", little one.

This is merely stating facts.

 

[schmidlap]

Oh, this isn't "lashing out", little one.

This is merely stating facts.

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing scientific methodology from your faith-based dogma.

Perhaps this will help:

​

The scientific method, while adaptable across disciplines, provides climate scientists with a structured approach to understand phenomena like carbon dioxide levels and sea level rise, crucial for addressing climate change. This method involves asking questions, conducting background research, formulating hypotheses, testing them through experiments, analyzing results, and drawing conclusions. Such rigor is essential for evaluating complex issues like the human impact on climate change.​

​

Climate change mitigation policies focus on controlling greenhouse gas emissions as a fundamental response to this global challenge. Encouraging critical thinking, students engage with the scientific method to form and compare their views on climate issues. The use of species indicator systems and impact models allows for the assessment of climate responses. Despite debates among scientists regarding specific aspects of climate change, a consensus exists: approximately 97% agree on the reality of human-induced climate change.​

​

The scientific understanding of climate change has evolved, emphasizing the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While the challenges of testing hypotheses about Earth’s climate in a real-world context remain, the method’s rigor still applies. Efforts to improve climate simulation systems and involve basic science pave the way for deeper insights into global warming...​

​

https://schmidscience.com/can-the-scientific-method-be-used-to-address.html

​

​

Before the Industrial Revolution , industrial emissions were very low, but with the increased use of fossil fuels to power machines, emissions rose to 6 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year by 1950. The upsurge in the average annual global temperature has, predictably, paralleled the upsurge in emissions.

​

The dogmatic belief of climate-change deniers, who cannot accept the scientific reality appears to be that, despite all the corroborative data, the atmosphere is, inexplicably, impervious to all the fossil fuel emissions.

When enjoined to provide their alternative data and analyses that conform to scientific methodology, they might rage inanely, but are unable to cite any such studies by any climatologists.

Despite their refusal to accept the reality, progress in clean energy proceeds. Unfortunately, China is the big winner, exporting wind and solar technology worldwide.

Aa always, the deniers are welcome to present the data upon which their aberrant views are based.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=11d9...iU4MiUyMHBlciUyMHllYXIlMjBieSUyMDE5NTAu&ntb=1

​

 

[EMH]

This method involves asking questions, conducting background research, formulating hypotheses, testing them through experiments, analyzing results, and drawing conclusions. Such rigor is essential for evaluating complex issues like the human impact on climate change.

Theory = adding CO2 to atmosphere causes warming

Data =

Satellites and balloons...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling."


Translation from NBC = for more than 3 decades of rising atmospheric CO2, the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere....



"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data"

The scientific method does NOT include "fudge data to fit bogus false theory" which is what they did.



Surface Air Pressure.

All forms of air pressure are correlated with temperature. If Earth was warming, surface air pressure would rise. IT isn't rising at all, proving

1. Earth is not warming and hasn't warmed at all for at least the past 60+ years
2. Earth is not experiencing any ongoing net ice melt, which would increase mass of atmosphere by adding gas to atmosphere


THEORY REJECTED

 

[westwall]

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing scientific methodology from your faith-based dogma.

Perhaps this will help:

​

The scientific method, while adaptable across disciplines, provides climate scientists with a structured approach to understand phenomena like carbon dioxide levels and sea level rise, crucial for addressing climate change. This method involves asking questions, conducting background research, formulating hypotheses, testing them through experiments, analyzing results, and drawing conclusions. Such rigor is essential for evaluating complex issues like the human impact on climate change.​

​

Climate change mitigation policies focus on controlling greenhouse gas emissions as a fundamental response to this global challenge. Encouraging critical thinking, students engage with the scientific method to form and compare their views on climate issues. The use of species indicator systems and impact models allows for the assessment of climate responses. Despite debates among scientists regarding specific aspects of climate change, a consensus exists: approximately 97% agree on the reality of human-induced climate change.​

​

The scientific understanding of climate change has evolved, emphasizing the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While the challenges of testing hypotheses about Earth’s climate in a real-world context remain, the method’s rigor still applies. Efforts to improve climate simulation systems and involve basic science pave the way for deeper insights into global warming...​

​

https://schmidscience.com/can-the-scientific-method-be-used-to-address.html

​

​

Before the Industrial Revolution , industrial emissions were very low, but with the increased use of fossil fuels to power machines, emissions rose to 6 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year by 1950. The upsurge in the average annual global temperature has, predictably, paralleled the upsurge in emissions.

View attachment 1259723​

The dogmatic belief of climate-change deniers, who cannot accept the scientific reality appears to be that, despite all the corroborative data, the atmosphere is, inexplicably, impervious to all the fossil fuel emissions.

When enjoined to provide their alternative data and analyses that conform to scientific methodology, they might rage inanely, but are unable to cite any such studies by any climatologists.

Despite their refusal to accept the reality, progress in clean energy proceeds. Unfortunately, China is the big winner, exporting wind and solar technology worldwide.

Aa always, the deniers are welcome to present the data upon which their aberrant views are based.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=11d9...iU4MiUyMHBlciUyMHllYXIlMjBieSUyMDE5NTAu&ntb=1

​

Too funny, your little screed switches from a mostly accurate recitation of the scientific method, then descends into opinion absent evidence.

Do you even understand that?

 

[schmidlap]

Too funny, your little screed switches from a mostly accurate recitation of the scientific method, then descends into opinion absent evidence.

Do you even understand that?

Again, where is the empirical data and its analysis that affirms your faith-based dogma that the tonnes and tonnes of industrial gasses that have been released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution are not responsible for the simultaneous rise in the average global temperature?

Your persistent inability to cite any such climatological studies speaks for itself. Your aberrant belief has not been scientifically validated.

 

[westwall]

Again, where is the empirical data and its analysis that affirms your faith-based dogma that the tonnes and tonnes of industrial gasses that have been released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution are not responsible for the simultaneous rise in the average global temperature?

Your persistent inability to cite any such climatological studies speaks for itself. Your aberrant belief has not been scientifically validated.

My statement is based on historical fact, not computer derived fiction, like your is.

 

[schmidlap]

My statement is based on historical fact, not computer derived fiction, like your is.

Once again, you demonstrate that you are unable to cite any climatological studies that support your science denial.

The progress that is occurring internationally in the transition to clean energy production reflects the acceptance of the scientific reality.

Despite the political propaganda and massive government subsidies to fossil fuel interests in the U.S., progress cannot be stopped here:

The American energy grid is going through one of the most consequential transformations it has seen in over a century, and the numbers behind that shift in 2026 are nothing short of remarkable. Renewable energy sources — solar, wind, hydropower, biomass, and geothermal — collectively delivered nearly 26% of all U.S. electricity generation in 2025, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and that figure is on a steep upward climb into 2026. For context, that same share was less than 1% in 2005, which means the United States has multiplied its renewable electricity output by more than 25 times in the space of two decades. At the same time, renewables accounted for more than 36% of total installed generating capacity across the country by the end of 2025, and EIA projects that share could approach 40% by the close of 2026. None of this happened by accident — it is the product of plunging technology costs, record-breaking capacity builds, state-level mandates, and a private investment wave that, remarkably, has continued to roll forward even amid shifting federal policy priorities.​

Renewable Energy Statistics in US 2026 | Growth & Key Data

Renewable Energy in America 2026 The American energy grid is going through one of the most consequential transformations it has seen in over a century, and the numbers behind that shift in 2026 are nothing short of remarkable. Renewable energy…

www.theglobalstatistics.com

​

 

[westwall]

Once again, you demonstrate that you are unable to cite any climatological studies that support your science denial.

The progress that is occurring internationally in the transition to clean energy production reflects the acceptance of the scientific reality.

Despite the political propaganda and massive government subsidies to fossil fuel interests in the U.S., progress cannot be stopped here:

The American energy grid is going through one of the most consequential transformations it has seen in over a century, and the numbers behind that shift in 2026 are nothing short of remarkable. Renewable energy sources — solar, wind, hydropower, biomass, and geothermal — collectively delivered nearly 26% of all U.S. electricity generation in 2025, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and that figure is on a steep upward climb into 2026. For context, that same share was less than 1% in 2005, which means the United States has multiplied its renewable electricity output by more than 25 times in the space of two decades. At the same time, renewables accounted for more than 36% of total installed generating capacity across the country by the end of 2025, and EIA projects that share could approach 40% by the close of 2026. None of this happened by accident — it is the product of plunging technology costs, record-breaking capacity builds, state-level mandates, and a private investment wave that, remarkably, has continued to roll forward even amid shifting federal policy priorities.​

Renewable Energy Statistics in US 2026 | Growth & Key Data

Renewable Energy in America 2026 The American energy grid is going through one of the most consequential transformations it has seen in over a century, and the numbers behind that shift in 2026 are nothing short of remarkable. Renewable energy…

www.theglobalstatistics.com

​

You are unable to cite any climatology study that relies on actual facts.

My position is wholly based on facts.

Yours is based on fiction.

Do you understand?