More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
"So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/about-that-overwhelming-98-n…/
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/about-that-overwhelming-98-n…/
"Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate - 13 times in fact - that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts are shown in this research to involve both changes in solar activity and the well-known 1977 Pacific Climate Shift."
The "Science" Underlying Climate Alarmism Turns Up Missing
The "Science" Underlying Climate Alarmism Turns Up Missing
"Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change.
But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming."
Scott and Shackleton logbooks prove Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking 100 years after expeditions
But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming."
Scott and Shackleton logbooks prove Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking 100 years after expeditions
Which is what many of us have been saying for years.
Buuuuut, there's no money to be made touting 'global normalcy'...is there.
Wow!
Life's to short to read the whole 51 pages but boy, you guys really think they're "out to get you" don't you.
There's nothing I can say which will make anyone see common sense here so I'm not even going to bother. I'll leave you alone to your conspiricay theories. Just had so say though...... WOW!
Life's to short to read the whole 51 pages but boy, you guys really think they're "out to get you" don't you.
There's nothing I can say which will make anyone see common sense here so I'm not even going to bother. I'll leave you alone to your conspiricay theories. Just had so say though...... WOW!
Paranoia? How about the ostrich's head buried in the sand? Uncountable trillions will be redistributed and only the slightest change, if any, will be accomplished. We know that time after time the climate data has been changed to fit the results needed to prove man has changed the climate. When that isn't enough, they just outright lie. And you, Simon, don't have the time to be bothered with it. That may seem to be fine, if you don't have any kids, but I'm concerned for the future of my kids and grandkids who will have to pay for this confiscation of wealth and resources.
"Ever since then, motorists have been stuck with higher fuel costs and lower mileage, and consumers have been stuck with higher food prices. Corn production has continued to increase and Congress expanded the mandate to include specific volumes. The cost of the ethanol mandate has been documented extensively as has the lack of real environmental benefits. In 2015, the Manhattan Institute published a report—The Hidden Corn Ethanol Tax—that concluded that in 2013 the mandate cost consumers $10.6 billion. Since the mandate went into effect, almost 26 years ago, its cost has been about $200 billion or more."
https://fee.org/articles/the-real-r...ur-gas/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook
https://fee.org/articles/the-real-r...ur-gas/?utm_source=zapier&utm_medium=facebook
Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.
People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Forbes Welcome
People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Forbes Welcome
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
YES!!! Voted best most legitimate, and most reasonable post!
I hope to God that paying for the assumed cost of this presumed hoax is the worst thing our offspring will face in light of other environmental and economic issues actually taking place.
Last edited:
Once again, proof that man has very little to do with,,,,,,,, Climate Cooling/Warming/Change!
"DeLong analyzed data from the past 282,000 years that shows, for the first time, a connection between the Earth's tilt called obliquity that shifts every 41,000 years, and the movement of a low pressure band of clouds that is the Earth's largest source of heat and moisture—the Intertropical Convergence Zone, or ITCZ."
Read more at: New research shows Earth's tilt influences climate change
"DeLong analyzed data from the past 282,000 years that shows, for the first time, a connection between the Earth's tilt called obliquity that shifts every 41,000 years, and the movement of a low pressure band of clouds that is the Earth's largest source of heat and moisture—the Intertropical Convergence Zone, or ITCZ."
Read more at: New research shows Earth's tilt influences climate change
We all do, Terry...the "cost" will be much worse the longer we ignore (or deny) the problem...and the penalty points for being wrong are WAAAAY over the top!
Sad...but true, some people would rather stick their heads into the sand than look the truth in the eyes!
Doug
“Biofuels have direct, fuel‐cycle GHG emissions that are typically 30–90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels. However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions—including from land use change—can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis” (IPCC 2014 Chapter 8).
Forbes Welcome
Forbes Welcome
EPA experiments on human guinea pigs;
"The NAS report is so filled with errors, omissions, misstatements, misdirection, and general dishonesty that it would take days if not weeks to fully critique. The NAS compromised its integrity to cover for the EPA, confirming Eisenhower's warning about the government-research complex that can produce science fraud and misconduct for a political agenda. Scaremongering is important for justifying government growth and overreach. After all, the aim of practical politics is to create scares so the populace will be anxious and clamor to be led to safety by government experts (paraphrasing H.L. Mencken)."
Read more: Articles: Swamp Diving: The EPA's Secret Human Experiment Regime
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
"The NAS report is so filled with errors, omissions, misstatements, misdirection, and general dishonesty that it would take days if not weeks to fully critique. The NAS compromised its integrity to cover for the EPA, confirming Eisenhower's warning about the government-research complex that can produce science fraud and misconduct for a political agenda. Scaremongering is important for justifying government growth and overreach. After all, the aim of practical politics is to create scares so the populace will be anxious and clamor to be led to safety by government experts (paraphrasing H.L. Mencken)."
Read more: Articles: Swamp Diving: The EPA's Secret Human Experiment Regime
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
"1. It is fundamentally mathematically impossible for climate models to predict climate."
" 2. Climate proxies are far too inaccurate, unreliable, and sparse to prove anything about past global climate, e.g. that it was colder."
"3. Scientific consensus is not proof of global warming, just publication and funding bias."
Top NASA Climate Modeler Admits Predictions are 'Mathematically Impossible' - Principia Scientific International
" 2. Climate proxies are far too inaccurate, unreliable, and sparse to prove anything about past global climate, e.g. that it was colder."
"3. Scientific consensus is not proof of global warming, just publication and funding bias."
Top NASA Climate Modeler Admits Predictions are 'Mathematically Impossible' - Principia Scientific International
Attachments
Well, guys, I don't usually post on this thread, but this morning it was reported that the Southwestern states are reporting the highest temperatures EVER recorded.
That's EVER...in all the years they have been keeping records.
Sure, I know the planet is going through a cyclic warming, but those of us who worry about climate change cannot help but wonder if it is just a sign of things to come.
The big issues seem to me to be...can we do anything about it in time to stop it and how do we go about it. It's a huge conundrum...we humans cannot stop the juggernaut of progress, so we have to approach the issue on a smaller scale. I doubt that ANY release of greenhouse gasses is a good idea...and each of us will approach the problem differently, but with this historical heat I think we all need to do something to address the issue.
What are you doing to help with the effort?
Cheers!
Doug
That's EVER...in all the years they have been keeping records.
Sure, I know the planet is going through a cyclic warming, but those of us who worry about climate change cannot help but wonder if it is just a sign of things to come.
The big issues seem to me to be...can we do anything about it in time to stop it and how do we go about it. It's a huge conundrum...we humans cannot stop the juggernaut of progress, so we have to approach the issue on a smaller scale. I doubt that ANY release of greenhouse gasses is a good idea...and each of us will approach the problem differently, but with this historical heat I think we all need to do something to address the issue.
What are you doing to help with the effort?
Cheers!
Doug
