The Global Warming Fraud
I think this is a global reason for making money from taxes and funds from people who believe that human influence with CO2 is bigger than influence of volcano)
[-] The following 2 users Like molekula's post:
  • antiquarian, Zedta
Reply
Very interesting and quite well done review of current thought, by REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS and other supporting scientific disciplines, on the issue at hand:


Article Wrote:Link to Original Article Page


Over 440 Scientific Papers Published In 2019 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
By Kenneth Richard on 30. January 2020


In 2019,  more than 440 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.[Image: Holocene-Cooling-SE-Pacific-SSTs-Collins-2019.jpg]
Image Source: Collins et al., 2019
[Image: Recent-cooling-across-Antarctica-and-a-w...g-2019.jpg]
Image Source: Lüning et al.,2019
[Image: Coral-Reef-Growth-with-Warm-Climate-High...n-2019.jpg]
Image Source:  Yan et al., 2019
[Image: Renewables-lead-to-poverty-Pereira-2019.jpg]
Image Source: Pereira et al., 2019
[Image: Atoll-island-coastlines-stable-to-growin...t-2019.jpg]
Image Source: Duvat, 2019
[Image: Global-greening-in-agricultural-areas-Gao-2019.jpg]
Image Source: Gao et al., 2019
Over 440 scientific papers published in 2019 affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines.
N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.
N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.
N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.
N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming).
In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:
A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.
A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough”, which means that “the time for debate has ended”.
A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
To reiterate, the 440+ papers compiled in 2019 support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus”A(1)-A(4) positions.  These papers do not do more than that.   In other words, it is not accurate to claim these papers prove that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) positions are invalid, or that AGW claims have now been debunked”.
Below are the three links to the list of scientific papers for 2019 as well as an outline to their categorization.
1. Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction (189)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (63)
No Net Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century (25)
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (19)
Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (24)
Nothing Unusual Occurring With Glaciers, Polar Ice (46)
Mass Extinction Events Caused By Glaciation, Sea Level Fall (5)
Ice Sheet Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (4)
Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (3)
2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change (131)
Solar Influence On Climate (73)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (11)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (25)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (3)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (2)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (17)
3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling (121)
Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors (26)
Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (8)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (13)
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (3)
Corals Thrive In Warm, High CO2 Environments (6)
Elevated CO2, Warmth, Does Not Harm The Biosphere (7)
No Effect Of Elevated CO2 (5000-15,000 ppm) On Human Cognition, Health (2)
Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields (27)
Fire Frequency Declining As CO2 Rises (3)
Global Warming Reduces Mortality. Cold Kills. (7)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes/Storms (3)
No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (4)
Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink (3)
Miscellaneous (9)
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
 
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.
J Edgar Hoover

 
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain
[-] The following 2 users Like Zedta's post:
  • 19405, antiquarian
Reply
(01-08-2020, 11:49 AM)Zedta Wrote: Following the above post, here is a genuine Climate Science EXPERT on the situation of Climate Change/Warming. Nothing short of the former President of the American Association of State Climatologists is who is interviewed. I suppose he could have some knowledge of the subject and he tends, in a big way, to lean towards the idea that Global Warming is a big fraud...and he presents PROOF!

Ya, its a video, but it is a video of an interview with a true expert:

It's interesting that those you agree with are "true experts", but those you do not agree with you dismiss entirely as biased. 

The "true expert" in the video you posted is Patrick Michaels. He had stated he gets 40% of his funding from the oil industry.  But I suppose he doesn't have any bias, right?
https://thinkprogress.org/catos-pat-mich...b8d728a494

What's your view on the health risks of smoking? Do you think the science there is fairly settled, or is that open to debate, too? I don't ask this up for no reason: Patrick Michaels was on the minority side of that topic, too.

Yes, in any field, there are a few people with credentials who go against some mainstream views. Want to try for a video from Fred Singer, next? While they usually do have some points, you need a good understanding of the entire field to properly assess those points. As I wrote before:

(12-08-2019, 11:11 PM)Stanis Wrote: My own field has a method accepted by 95+% of those working in the field, but rejected by a few, including one professor in the US who has co-authored papers with every significant scientist in the field. He says the method isn't trustworthy because it doesn't work all the time. He is correct that it doesn't work all the time, but those in the field understand when it can't be used. Understanding when and why it works requires at least a masters-degree level training, though.
Reply
Stanis, really, I am getting bored  Sleep of your weak arguments and dissing of the data I post. All you seem capable of is drawing doubt on a point by attacking the presenter, personally, but ignoring the data they present. That is very disingenuous.

BTW: You have repeatedly refused to answer a question: What exactly is your 'field' that you so often refer to be a part of? I am genuinely curious.

So, I know this guy, according to you, Stanis, is 'only' a lawyer, but what is very true of lawyers is that they can make a case. They don't need any pointed bone fides to make a point, only the ability to gather facts and illustrate a definitive result from those facts.

So, I am certain you will not watch this, you prefer to be in the dark, as it were, but your lawyer guy has put out a very detailed report on how current "Climate Science' is turning and even Los Alamos National Laboratory (I know, they don't know anything) is shouting the mantra I have promoted all along: IT'S THE SUN!!!!


One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
 
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.
J Edgar Hoover

 
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain
[-] The following 1 user Likes Zedta's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
Interesting this:


Article Wrote:Link to Original Article

Climate Science does about-face, dials back 'worst-case scenario'
By Anthony Watts


A comment published last week in Nature, a leading scientific journal, has thrown a monkey wrench into hundreds of studies and media stories that previously predicted dire climate consequences in the future due to increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere.

The consequences were predicted by a computer model called Representative Carbon Pathways (RCP), and the worst-case scenario model, RCP8.5, had been cited more than 2,500 times in scientific journals and in hundreds of media stories as the primary need for "urgent action" on climate.  Predictions from the RCP8.5 model suggested maximum global temperature increases of nearly 6°C (10.8°F) by the year 2100, shown in Figure 1.

[Image: 219011_5_.jpgf][Image: 219011_5_.jpg]
Figure 1.  Image credit: Neil Craik, University of Waterloo.

In the original scientific paper, RCP8.5 had just a slim 3-percent chance of becoming reality.  Since climate alarmists (and some climate scientists) prefer to preach future doom to spur action, the predictions of RCP8.5 have become known as the "business-as-usual" scenario, even though it was nowhere close to that.

However, in a stunning walk-back, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough Institute bucked the climate consensus and said the RCP8.5 worst-case scenario is unlikely to happen.  The reason?  We can't get there, given how much fossil fuel is being used now.  The model assumes a 500-percent increase in the use of coal, which is now considered highly unlikely, since coal use has dropped significantly, as seen in Figure 2.

[Image: 219010_5_.jpg]
Figure 2.  Image credit: United States Energy Information Administration (EIA).

With this new information that excludes the worst-case RCP8.5 scenario, rather than predicting a future world that warms by 6°C (10.8°F), climate alarmists will go to the next lower scenario, RCP6, with warming by 2100 around 3°C (5.4°F).

In typical climate alarmist fashion, however, the two authors of this Nature article say the lower temperatures due to this drop-off of coal use and the exclusion of RCP8.5 aren't guaranteed.  What's the reason?  Well, scientists are still uncertain how sensitive global temperatures are to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.  The value showing climate sensitivity, known as the Charney Sensitivity, still isn't known for certain — even though it's more than 40 years after it was first introduced in 1979 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (chaired by Jule Charney).  Charney estimated climate sensitivity to be 3°C (5.4 °F), give or take 1.5°C (2.7°F).

Without knowing the true climate warming response to increased CO2, essentially, all climate models become a crapshoot.  It is a glaring illustration of just how imprecise climate science really is.

But get this: new climate models are being used for the next set of major projections due from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change next year, known as AR6.  Those models are said to show that temperatures are more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought.

Because of AR6, the higher numbers of the worst-case scenario are likely to be back on the table, along with continued calls for climate action in the form of reductions, alternate tech, and carbon dioxide taxation.

There is another fly in the ointment: even if the atmosphere turns out to be more sensitive to CO2 than they thought, it is unlikely that the world will ever get to a doubling for CO2 in the atmosphere — the level on which climate sensitivity estimates are based.

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer did a model calculation the same week as this new Nature article was released and discovered something very surprising. Using data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projecting that energy-based emissions of CO2 will grow at 0.6 percent per year until 2050, Spencer plugged that data into a climate model.  With the reasonable EIA assumptions regarding CO2 emissions, the climate model does not even reach a doubling of atmospheric CO2, but instead reaches an equilibrium CO2 concentration of 541 ppm in the mid-2200s.

Spencer writes:
Quote:[T]he result is that, given the latest projections of CO2 emissions, future CO2 concentrations will not only be well below the RCP8.5 scenario, but might not even be as high as RCP4.5, with atmospheric CO2 concentrations possibly not even reach a doubling (560 ppm) of estimated pre-Industrial levels (280 ppm) before leveling off.  This result is even without future reductions in CO2 emissions, which is a possibility as new energy technologies become available."

The RCP4.5 scenario suggests a range of warming of about 1.7–3.2°C (3–5.8°F), which doesn't constitute a "climate emergency" and may even be beneficial to humankind.  After all, humanity didn't do well during cold periods in history, and another global ice age would certainly be ruinous.

With this broad uncertainty about what the future climate will be, the bottom line on climate science predictions is well served by the great Yogi Berra, who famously said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

Anthony Watts ([email=mailto:think@heartland.org]mailto:think@heartland.org[/email]) is former television meteorologist and senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.  He operates the most viewed website on climate in the world, WattsUpWithThat.com.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
 
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.
J Edgar Hoover

 
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain
Reply
Interesting and fascinating article and video this:


Article/Video Wrote:Link to Original Article

Climate Change Mass Indoctrination | Corruption of Science 2020


Wow, this Dutch YouTube account, Artikel 7 is pumping out amazing videos, skillfully editing together disparate pieces of footage with music and graphics, while driving a powerful point about the deliberate corruption of science to push forward the misanthropic, nihilistic, apocalyptic and genocidal cult that is climate activism.

As Dr. Tim Ball, a retired professor from the University of Winnepeg says here, this corruption has been premeditated, “And just like with murders, murders of passion are one thing but premeditated murders are a completely different situation.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen, an Atmospheric Physicist at MIT says of this corruption, “Science, itself has become sort of a slight irrelevance, that stories have been promoted over the last 25-30 years and they have completely redirected the science. But more to the point, they’ve also followed Eisenhower’s warning that fundamentally, as the state monopolizes the support of science. It calls the shots.

“So you have the scientists on the one hand, on both sides presenting, I would say, not particularly alarming scenarios but then you have the body politic presenting something that does not, by and large have the support of science, about the end of the planet…

“What is the cost of the politicization of science? Well, it’s many things…I don’t think any field survives this degree of corruption without losing, if nothing else it’s self-respect. But in terms of climate science, I think it set back the field probably a few generations.

“I mean, it forced it into a channel that was not describing most of past climate change and so, instead of trying to figure out how the Earth behaved, the field was co-opted into a situation where it was supposed to support a paradigm that the government wanted or that the environmental movement wanted.”
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
 
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous that he cannot believe it exists.
J Edgar Hoover

 
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

 
Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain
[-] The following 1 user Likes Zedta's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)