The great global warming fraud

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bull, it does in January when closest to Sun.

It did when the flying dinosaurs were alive.

You have no refutation time period.

Bull, it does in January when closest to Sun.

Where does SAP rise in January? Is it the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere

It did when the flying dinosaurs were alive.

LOL! Sure.

You have no refutation time period.

You have no data that supports your claim.

 

[Robert W]

Is that your proof that the planet isn't warming?
Or that SAP never changes (except when it does)?

I am uncertain that the planet is really warming. Some scientists knowledgeable about climate say yes, others say no. Still no matter, the nuts say warming is dangerous. Nuts talk that way.

 

[Rumpole]

You have NO WARMING in the ACTUAL DATA from the atmosphere. NONE. You just pollute this section by posting bullshit everyone with an IQ over 5 already knows is bullshit.

I'm sorry, given the caliber of your comment, it is clear that you do not know the subject well enough to make such a determination.

 

[Rumpole]

I am uncertain that the planet is really warming. Some scientists knowledgeable about climate say yes, others say no. Still no matter, the nuts say warming is dangerous. Nuts talk that way.

Robert, let's take a look at this.

The claim that scientists are split on whether the planet is warming isn't a matter of interpretation--it's factually wrong. This isn't a close call in the literature. Let's run through what you'd actually need to believe to sustain your position.

The thermometer record alone closes the case. NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological Agency all maintain independent global surface temperature datasets. They use different methodologies, different station networks, different ways of handling ocean temperatures. They all show the same thing: roughly 1.2°C of warming since the pre-industrial baseline. You don't get that kind of convergence from agencies on different continents unless the signal is real.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The satellite era confirms it. UAH--the University of Alabama in Huntsville dataset, which was set up by scientists skeptical of surface records and was initially expected to contradict them--shows warming in the lower troposphere consistent with surface measurements. The skeptics built their own thermometer. It agreed.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Physical fingerprinting removes remaining doubt. We're not just watching temperatures rise in isolation. Arctic sea ice extent is declining. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass--measurable by the GRACE gravity satellites. Sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate. The troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, which is exactly the signature of greenhouse gas forcing, not solar activity. Ocean heat content--which accounts for about 90% of the energy imbalance--is rising. These aren't independent findings that all happen to point the same way by coincidence. They're interconnected predictions of the same physical theory, and they're all confirmed.

https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/applications/climate-change/

On the "some scientists say no" claim: You're thinking of a real phenomenon that's been extensively documented--manufactured doubt. The fossil fuel industry, beginning in the 1970s and '80s, internally acknowledged the reality of climate change while funding public campaigns to create the impression of scientific controversy. Internal documents from ExxonMobil, now public, show their own scientists accurately projecting warming decades before it was politically contested. The appearance of scientific disagreement was a product, not a discovery.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

On dismissing danger as "nuts talk": The dangerous effects aren't predictions from fringe advocates. They're from IPCC assessment reports compiled by thousands of researchers, from reinsurance companies pricing catastrophic risk, from the U.S. military's threat assessments, and from peer-reviewed attribution science showing that heat events, flooding events, and wildfire conditions are being made more frequent and more severe by the warming already documented. You don't have to agree with every policy proposal to engage with the underlying physical facts. The facts don't care about the politics.

The phrase "some scientists say no" is doing a lot of work in your position, and it won't hold the weight. When you look at what those scientists actually published, how it was received, who funded it, and how it held up--the picture is not "legitimate ongoing scientific dispute." It's closer to "a manufactured controversy with a paper trail."

 

[Robert W]

Robert, let's take a look at this.

The claim that scientists are split on whether the planet is warming isn't a matter of interpretation--it's factually wrong. This isn't a close call in the literature. Let's run through what you'd actually need to believe to sustain your position.

The thermometer record alone closes the case. NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological Agency all maintain independent global surface temperature datasets. They use different methodologies, different station networks, different ways of handling ocean temperatures. They all show the same thing: roughly 1.2°C of warming since the pre-industrial baseline. You don't get that kind of convergence from agencies on different continents unless the signal is real.


The satellite era confirms it. UAH--the University of Alabama in Huntsville dataset, which was set up by scientists skeptical of surface records and was initially expected to contradict them--shows warming in the lower troposphere consistent with surface measurements. The skeptics built their own thermometer. It agreed.


Physical fingerprinting removes remaining doubt. We're not just watching temperatures rise in isolation. Arctic sea ice extent is declining. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass--measurable by the GRACE gravity satellites. Sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate. The troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, which is exactly the signature of greenhouse gas forcing, not solar activity. Ocean heat content--which accounts for about 90% of the energy imbalance--is rising. These aren't independent findings that all happen to point the same way by coincidence. They're interconnected predictions of the same physical theory, and they're all confirmed.


On the "some scientists say no" claim: You're thinking of a real phenomenon that's been extensively documented--manufactured doubt. The fossil fuel industry, beginning in the 1970s and '80s, internally acknowledged the reality of climate change while funding public campaigns to create the impression of scientific controversy. Internal documents from ExxonMobil, now public, show their own scientists accurately projecting warming decades before it was politically contested. The appearance of scientific disagreement was a product, not a discovery.

On dismissing danger as "nuts talk": The dangerous effects aren't predictions from fringe advocates. They're from IPCC assessment reports compiled by thousands of researchers, from reinsurance companies pricing catastrophic risk, from the U.S. military's threat assessments, and from peer-reviewed attribution science showing that heat events, flooding events, and wildfire conditions are being made more frequent and more severe by the warming already documented. You don't have to agree with every policy proposal to engage with the underlying physical facts. The facts don't care about the politics.

The phrase "some scientists say no" is doing a lot of work in your position, and it won't hold the weight. When you look at what those scientists actually published, how it was received, who funded it, and how it held up--the picture is not "legitimate ongoing scientific dispute." It's closer to "a manufactured controversy with a paper trail."

lindzen lecture - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.

www.bing.com

 

[Rumpole]

lindzen lecture - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.

www.bing.com

I know all about the guy, this is from one of my lectures on another forum:
Let's talk about Richard Lindzen, because his name comes up in climate discussions the way a dentist's name comes up when someone doesn't want to go: as an authority invoked to avoid an uncomfortable but necessary reckoning.

Lindzen is not a crank. That's the first thing you need to understand—and the first thing his most enthusiastic fans exploit. He is a retired Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He has done genuinely important work in atmospheric dynamics, including foundational research on the quasi-biennial oscillation, which is a real thing involving stratospheric wind patterns, not a band name. He is credentialed. He is intelligent. He publishes in peer-reviewed journals.

And his core scientific claims about climate change have, one after another, failed to survive independent scrutiny.

That distinction matters. Being credentialed is not the same as being right. And in Lindzen's case, the gap between those two things is the Grand Canyon.

What Lindzen Actually Argues​

Lindzen does not deny that the planet is warming. He does not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What he argues—and has argued for decades, with shifting supporting hypotheses—is that climate sensitivity is very low. That is, that the amount of warming you get from doubling atmospheric CO2 is far smaller than the scientific mainstream concludes. He argues the feedbacks that amplify warming—particularly involving water vapor and clouds—are weaker or even negative. The planet, in his telling, has a natural thermostat that prevents serious harm. Nothing to see here. Move along.

This is a coherent scientific position. It is also one that the broader scientific community has examined rigorously and, each time, found lacking.

His "Iris Effect" hypothesis—the idea that tropical clouds would thin in response to warming, allowing heat to escape and damping any temperature rise—was tested by multiple independent research teams and did not hold up to the observational data. His water vapor arguments were similarly examined and found to be inconsistent with satellite measurements. The Global Climate Coalition—an industry lobbying group, mind you, hardly a hotbed of alarmism—reviewed Lindzen's contrarian arguments and quietly set them aside because the supporting evidence was too weak to use.

Let that settle for a moment. The fossil fuel industry's own scientists looked at Lindzen's work and said, in effect, we can't build a corporate strategy on this math.

The "Cautious Concern" Is Not Alarmism—It's the Science​

Here's what I want to be direct about, because this forum sometimes frames this as a binary between hysterical alarmists and cool-headed skeptics: the mainstream scientific position on climate change is, itself, the cautious and measured one.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not predict apocalypse on a fixed schedule. It publishes ranges of probability and magnitude. It uses phrases like "very likely" and "high confidence" with specific technical definitions. It presents uncertainty honestly and explicitly.

Crucially, in physics and data science, "uncertainty" does not mean ignorance; it means error bars. We are uncertain whether a doubling of CO2 will warm the planet by 2.5°C or 4°C, but the mathematical certainty that it is warming is undisputed. The consensus is not a doomsday cult. It is a careful aggregation of evidence from atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, glaciologists, and paleoclimatologists across dozens of countries who have no particular institutional incentive to agree with each other.

When those scientists say there is a "substantial risk" of warming considerably larger than 1°C this century—with attendant risks to sea level, agricultural systems, extreme weather frequency, and ocean chemistry—that is not hysteria. That is the application of probability to consequences. It is the same reasoning we apply to earthquake engineering, actuarial tables, and hurricane preparedness. We do not wait for absolute certainty before we reinforce a bridge.

Lindzen's rhetorical move—and it is a move, whatever its scientific dressing—is to treat uncertainty as a reason for inaction rather than as a reason for prudence. He is technically correct that climate models have error bars. He is also not entirely wrong that many individual actions people take to address climate change—the reusable straws, the carbon-offset airline tickets, the feel-good gestures—are largely inconsequential at scale.

But watch what he does with those correct observations: from them, he makes an unjustified double leap—that we therefore "don't know if there is a problem," and that because some proposed solutions are inadequate, the search for better ones should be abandoned. If your house is on fire and a glass of water doesn't put it out, the conclusion isn't that fire is a myth. It's that you need a fire truck. Lindzen points at the inadequate glass of water as an excuse to let the house burn. That is not a scientific conclusion Lindzen is offering. That is a policy preference dressed in a lab coat.

The Colleagues He Left Behind​

In 2017, Lindzen sent a petition to President Trump urging withdrawal from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He described the 300 signatories as "eminent scientists and other qualified individuals." A review of the list by the Guardian found few actual climate, earth, or physical scientists among them.

Twenty-two of his own MIT colleagues—people who worked in the same building, in the same field, who know his work as well as anyone on Earth—responded with a public open letter. Crucially, they didn't just disagree on policy; they specifically called out factual errors in Lindzen's letter. They noted the near-universal agreement among professional scientific societies—the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and 140 national academies of science—on the reality and seriousness of human-caused warming.

"In stark contrast to Lindzen's letter," wrote Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences and a world-leading authority on hurricanes, "ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system."

That is not a dismissal from ideological opponents. That is a verdict on data from his closest peers.

What to Do With All of This​

You can acknowledge—as I do—that Lindzen raises legitimate points about scientific culture, about the temptation to overstate certainty, and about the complexity of climate modeling. These are fair critiques in principle. The response to them is not to conclude that the science is therefore useless. The response is to engage with probability and risk honestly.

A doctor who tells you that you have a 70% chance of a serious heart attack in the next decade if you don't change your habits is not being alarmist. She is doing her job. You can dispute her model. You can seek a second opinion. But if your response is to hunt for the one retired cardiologist out of a hundred who thinks your real risk is more like 5%, and to treat his lonely minority view as permission to order the bacon cheeseburger—well, that's a choice. It is an emotional coping mechanism, but it is not a scientifically defensible response.

Cautious concern is not alarmism. It is the rational response to substantial risk, communicated by the overwhelming weight of expert evidence, that has been stress-tested by independent scientists across decades and continents.

Richard Lindzen is a smart man who has spent the last thirty years being wrong about the most important question in his field, finding new ways to be wrong about it, and being celebrated for that persistence by people who have a financial or political interest in his being wrong.

You are allowed to take him seriously. You are not required to take him at his word.

• The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
• Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
• Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
• Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009
• Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 2: Risk
• Lindzen's Clouded Vision, Part 1: Science
• Climate Scientists take on Richard Lindzen
• Lindzen's Junk Science
• Lindzen's London Illusions

 

[EMH]

Is that your proof that the planet isn't warming?

The fact that Earth SAP isn't rising proves

Earth isn't warming
Earth isn't experiencing any net ice melt

Or that SAP never changes

LOL!!!!

The Earth STANDARD sea level SAP hasn't changed for decades if not centuries, proving it isn't going up.

Earth SAP does change, it goes up when planet is closest to Sun (warmest) in January.
Earth SAP does change, it was 3-5 times higher when the flying dinosaurs flew.
Earth SAP changes because of two things, temperature and mass of atmosphere.

 

[EMH]

Where does SAP rise in January? Is it the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere

SAP is planetary. It is the same at sea level for the entire planet, with minor noise from weather.

 

[EMH]

I'm sorry, given the caliber of your comment, it is clear that you do not know the subject well enough to make such a determination.

Satellite and balloon FUDGE JOB of 2005...

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

Surface Air Pressure not rising = atmosphere not warming


Your side has ZERO actual unFUDGED data that atmosphere has warmed, ZERO.

 

[EMH]

You don't get that kind of convergence from agencies on different continents unless the signal is real.

Or a lot of liars from "a conspiracy against everyone else, not a religion."

 

[EMH]

Lindzen does not deny that the planet is warming.

which proves he is yet another CHOSEN FAUX SKEPTIC and part of CO2 FRAUD....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that Earth SAP isn't rising proves

Earth isn't warming
Earth isn't experiencing any net ice melt





LOL!!!!

The Earth STANDARD sea level SAP hasn't changed for decades if not centuries, proving it isn't going up.

Earth SAP does change, it goes up when planet is closest to Sun (warmest) in January.
Earth SAP does change, it was 3-5 times higher when the flying dinosaurs flew.
Earth SAP changes because of two things, temperature and mass of atmosphere.

The fact that Earth SAP isn't rising proves

You have anyone you can link who agrees with this claim?

The Earth STANDARD sea level SAP hasn't changed for decades if not centuries, proving it isn't going up.

The speed of light hasn't changed.
That isn't proof of your claims either.

Earth SAP does change, it was 3-5 times higher when the flying dinosaurs flew.

What is your proof of that?
You think 2-4 times the current atmosphere is hiding in bubbles in the ice?

Hilarious!

Any serious scientists support your claim?
Or did you come up with that one all on your own?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SAP is planetary. It is the same at sea level for the entire planet, with minor noise from weather.

SAP is planetary.

It really isn't.

It is the same at sea level for the entire planet

You just said it increases when the Earth is closer to the sun.
Were you wrong then or wrong now?

 

[EMH]

You just said it increases when the Earth is closer to the sun

The statements are not inconsistent. SAP is planetary. It goes up when Earth is closer to Sun, down when Earth moves away from Sun. While it increases and decreases, it is THE SAME at sea level everywhere on the planet, what the word STANDARD from STANDARD SURFACE AIR PRESSURE really means.... down to 6 digits....

 

[EMH]

You have anyone you can link who agrees with this claim?

Mossad offed them....

What is your proof of that?

Thread 'Flying dinosaurs and Earth climate change'

Wednesday at 3:09 PM

What do flying dinosaurs tell us about Earth climate change?

https://lru.praxis.dk/Lru/microsites/hvadermatematik/hem1download/Kap5_projekt5_9_skalering_hvordan_kunne_quetzalcoatlus_flyve.pdf

"If you allow yourself to entertain the idea that a higher atmospheric pressure, say between 3 and 5 bar, could have existed in the time of the dinosaurs, it would resolve two of the anomalies that face us today, which are:

1. how a dinosaur’s heart could pump blood 7 or more meters upwards, without introducing the ideas of multiple hearts (as many as 8), giant hearts, and hearts located...

• EMH
• Replies: 86
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 

 

[EMH]

You think 2-4 times the current atmosphere is hiding in bubbles in the ice?

Less than a mile down in the 2.5 mile thick Antarctic ice, we got 2.7 million years of ice core data including THE GAS called CO2.

Below that, the layers are so thin and compacted by the mass of the ice on top of them, there is no "gas" in them, the O2, N, CO2 etc. "Desublimation."

But the molecules are still there, melt that ice and they'd go back into atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The statements are not inconsistent. SAP is planetary. It goes up when Earth is closer to Sun, down when Earth moves away from Sun. While it increases and decreases, it is THE SAME at sea level everywhere on the planet, what the word STANDARD from STANDARD SURFACE AIR PRESSURE really means.... down to 6 digits....

SAP is planetary. It goes up when Earth is closer to Sun, down when Earth moves away from Sun.

Then you can show it going up in both hemispheres in January. So show it.

While it increases and decreases, it is THE SAME at sea level everywhere on the planet,

LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mossad offed them....

Thread 'Flying dinosaurs and Earth climate change'

Wednesday at 3:09 PM

What do flying dinosaurs tell us about Earth climate change?

https://lru.praxis.dk/Lru/microsites/hvadermatematik/hem1download/Kap5_projekt5_9_skalering_hvordan_kunne_quetzalcoatlus_flyve.pdf

"If you allow yourself to entertain the idea that a higher atmospheric pressure, say between 3 and 5 bar, could have existed in the time of the dinosaurs, it would resolve two of the anomalies that face us today, which are:

1. how a dinosaur’s heart could pump blood 7 or more meters upwards, without introducing the ideas of multiple hearts (as many as 8), giant hearts, and hearts located...

• EMH
• Replies: 86
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 

Yeah, they killed everyone but you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Less than a mile down in the 2.5 mile thick Antarctic ice, we got 2.7 million years of ice core data including THE GAS called CO2.

Below that, the layers are so thin and compacted by the mass of the ice on top of them, there is no "gas" in them, the O2, N, CO2 etc. "Desublimation."

But the molecules are still there, melt that ice and they'd go back into atmosphere.

Less than a mile down in the 2.5 mile thick Antarctic ice, we got 2.7 million years of ice core data including THE GAS called CO2.

So what?

But the molecules are still there, melt that ice and they'd go back into atmosphere.

How many molecules? Link?

 

[Rumpole]

Satellite and balloon FUDGE JOB of 2005...

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

Surface Air Pressure not rising = atmosphere not warming


Your side has ZERO actual unFUDGED data that atmosphere has warmed, ZERO.

Let's take a moment to appreciate what you just did. In a thread about "AGW fraud," you linked to a 2005 NBC News article titled "Key claim against global warming evaporates" -- an article whose entire purpose is to explain how the satellite and weather balloon data that skeptics had been wielding against atmospheric warming was found to be riddled with analytical errors.

The satellite and weather balloon data used for years to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming wasn't happening turned out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three studies published in the journal Science. The article you cited isn't a vindication of your position. It's a post-mortem of it.

Yale geologist Steven Sherwood found that older radiosonde instruments were insufficiently shielded from solar radiation, causing them to record artificially elevated daytime temperatures -- and that when this corrupted daytime data was pooled with accurate nighttime data, the net result looked like atmospheric cooling. It wasn't. It was a systematic instrumentation artifact that had been masquerading as a scientific result.

Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory identified a separate error in Roy Spencer's satellite analysis technique -- the correction factor applied for satellite drift was wrong. When Carl Mears and Frank Wentz corrected for it, the troposphere showed warming, consistent with surface thermometer records and climate model predictions.

So when you thundered that there is "NO WARMING in the ACTUAL DATA from the atmosphere. NONE." -- you were recycling a claim that your own source explicitly buries. The "actual data" you're gesturing at was the pre-correction data. The corrected data, the scientifically vetted data, shows exactly what mainstream climate science has always said it shows.

As Santer put it: "When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof." The extraordinary proof arrived. It proved the cooling claim wrong. That's not fraud on the part of climate scientists. That's science doing exactly what it's supposed to do -- subjecting data to scrutiny, finding errors, and correcting them.

The fraud hypothesis requires that thousands of researchers across competing institutions, countries, and decades all conspired to fake a result that their own adversaries' data -- once properly analyzed -- independently confirms. You have linked to the evidence that dismantles your own argument. I'll leave you to sit with that.