Monday, March 23, 2015

climate change our fault? Leftist hoax




97% LIE
Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming Thomas Lifson The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view." "These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases." The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950. Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example: The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One way or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.

EPA ‘Public Listening Session’ Turns Into Sierra Club Talking Session → The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey Posted on November 20, 2013 by Anthony Watts 52percent_AMS-vs-97percent_SkS We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”. In short, it was a lie of omission enabled by a “pea and thimble” switch Steve McIntyre so often points out about climate science. Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work. Readers of news stories had no idea they’d been lied to by John Cook et al². So, while we’ll be fighting this lie for years, one very important bit of truth has emerged that will help put it into its proper place of propaganda, rather than science. A recent real survey conducted of American Meteorological Society members has blown Cook’s propaganda paper right out of the water. The survey is titled: Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members¹ Abstract Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated–and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated–with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents’ views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community. From the abstract, it is clear the authors didn’t expect to find this result, as they were likely expecting something close to the fabled 97%. They give this away when they advise in the abstract steps that can be taken to “correct” the low number reported. The introduction says: Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%). So clearly, none of the work to date matches Cook’s pal reviewed activist effort. The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts: “Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?” Respondent options were: Yes: Mostly human Yes: Equally human and natural Yes: Mostly natural Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause] Yes: Don’t know cause Don’t know if global warming is happening Global warming is not happening Here’s the kicker: Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.


see all the evidence of why climate change is a leftist hoax which made hypocrite ALGORE a billion https://www.facebook.com/pages/What-global-warming/353331061357216 the founder of greenpeace today expressed sceptism about supposed climate change


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

The 10 Top Inconvenient Truths About the Climate Change Hoax

September 23, 2014 By TPNN Staff


Global Warming Climate Change high priests Barack Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore, as well as all Democrats have been aggressively pushing the junk science, all as a deceptive attempt to feed their political greed and give government more control over our lives. 

Largely ignored by the leftstream media is the fact that NOAA/NASA altered US temperatures showing a warming trend the last 130 years where none existed. This information is part of a larger set of data, proving that the climate change “experts” are advocates, not objective, thriving on a welfare system of research dependent on making global climate change a threat.

Scientists for years have been colluding with government regulators to exact control over our economic system, attempting to replace capitalism with communism/socialism through climate change nonsense, preying on weak-minded Democrats, liberals, and progressives. 

It is important to understand a few things (see supporting documentation below list):

1. The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

2. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

3. Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant.  We didn’t cause climate change, and we cannot stop it.

4. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

5. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

6. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

7. When using unaltered historical NOAA/NASA data, there has been no warming trend the last 130 years.

8. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs.  The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat.

9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.

10. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a mental disorder.

Despite the fact that CO2 levels have continued to increase, there has been no global warming for nearly two decades, the communist believers in the false religion formerly known as “global warming,” but now referred to as “climate change” (the climate has ALWAYS changed, fyi), these fanatical evangelists deny the fact there is no science proving manmade global warming. 

After multiple accounts of proven scientific fraud, such as ClimateGate I and ClimateGate II, proving that taxpayer-bilking scientists doctored data to make it look like global warming existed when there was none, the sycophantic worshiping of this manmade religion can only be attributed to a serious mental condition. 

RELATED:  Weather Channel Founder Explains the History of the Global Warming Hoax

And Here’s the Proof:

Plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. (Reference: John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama)

All of southern Greenland and most of the northern part were ice-free during the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in. Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate. (Reference: University of Copenhagen (2007, July 5). Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com)

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor). (Reference: Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,)

RELATED:  VIDEO: Hypocrite Al Gore Leaves Climate March in Suburban SUV

April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling. This cooling was supposed to put us into another ice age.

An early indication that the Sun’s variability in ways other than total output had something to do with climate was the “Maunder Minimum“. The researcher Maunder found that during this cold period between 1645-1715 there was very little sunspot activity, and this discovery led to the naming of the phenomenon after him. It suggested that solar activity was coupled to climate and led to tabulations of sunspot number as an indication of solar activity. Even more compelling is the fact that there exists a well-documented Roman Warm period from the time of the Roman Caesars, and a Medieval Warm Period, both of which correlate with solar activity, but certainly can have nothing whatever to do with CO2 produced by any human industrial activities. Solar activity is now expected to decrease in a 30-year cycle. (reference: : Dr. Kelvin Kemm, engineering news)

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (┬Ám), respectively.  The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. the laws of physics don’t seem to allow CO2 it’s currently assumed place as a significant “greenhouse gas” based on present concentrations. if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter a bit. (Reference: The Middlebury Community Network 2008)

RELATED:  VIDEO: ‘Do You Agree with Obama’s Global Warming Alarmism?’ Watch What Dem-Invited Witnesses Say

Scientists have found that studying density of plant stomata can be a much more accurate measure of historical atmospheric carbon dioxide than ice core studies. Studies of plant stomata show that the currently held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view. CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm– the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm . Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over time spans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm– not the exception. (Retrieved 06/23/2014 from http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html)

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth’s ice and 80 percent of its fresh water. Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980. Arctic ice is down less than 7%. winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. (Reference: NOAA GISS, website National Snow and Ice Data Center’s website of the University of Colorado).


U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001 — in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant. Climate models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn’t predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003 — which is the opposite of what you’d expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. Even more importantly, the United States is currently undergoing the longest streak in modern history without a major landfall hurricane (June, 2014). The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise. Reference: Wall Street Journal, Feb 5th 2007

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html  Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.


Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change. Supporting this view is British scientist Jane Francis, who maintains: " What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."

see also http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/#ixzz3KZ9KFZv7 This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists.


Obama Expected to Bind US to CO2 Reduction at Paris Climate Meeting This Year


In his State-of-the-Union address, president Obama again confirmed that “saving the climate” remains one of his top priorities.  Yet an official December 2014 confab in Lima, Peru didn't really conclude anything -- certainly no binding Protocol to limit emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) -- but it "kicked the can down the road" to the next international gabfest in Paris, scheduled for 2015.

The world is looking forward to the 21st annual COP (conference of the parties to the global climate treaty), which will be held in Paris in December of 2015.  It is hoped by many that Paris will end up with a climate protocol that will continue and even surpass the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which expired in 2012 and achieved practically nothing except to waste hundreds of billions that might have been better spent addressing genuine world problems -- without accomplishing its main goal of reducing global emissions of the much-maligned greenhouse gas CO2.  On the contrary, emissions rose -- mainly from greatly increased industrial growth in China, which was fueled primarily by coal-fired power plants.  At the same time, of course, global agriculture benefited from these higher levels of CO2, which is a natural plant fertilizer; the starving of the world really owe a vote of thanks to China.

Three “big guns” billionaires --Tom Steyer, Hank Paulson, Mike Bloomberg -- have already pledged their support for Paris; various scientific groups have already issued alarming Statements, without even the pretense of agreement from their memberships; even the Vatican’s Pope Francis plans to get into the act.
The Paris pattern
It is not at all difficult to predict what will happen in Paris; in fact, it is a “no-brainer.”  There will be an agreement of sorts, but it will be essentially meaningless.  Yet it will be hailed as a “breakthrough” by the White House and thus form an important part of the “Obama Legacy.”
The basic pattern for Paris has been set already by the US-China agreement of Nov 12, 2014.  China agreed to do nothing until at least 2030 -- just continue to emit ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, with a peak at around 2030 (they say).  By that time, it can be safely predicted that energy demand in China will have been saturated.  Population may have stabilized and every household will have accumulated all of the gadgets they need to make life pleasant: Television, refrigerators, air conditioning, and the other baubles common in the wealthy countries.  Has China finally decided to “fight climate change”?  My personal opinion is that China is taking advantage of White House science ignorance and anxiety about future climate change, hoping thereby to gain commercial and strategic advantages against the United States. 
Other nations
Following the China example, India may decide to adopt the China pattern and let their emissions peak around 2050, let’s say; other countries will choose their dates accordingly.  In other words, everybody will be doing their own thing, but there will be some kind of “agreement” that they will all be happy to sign -- or be bribed into signing.
Significantly, Japan, Canada, and Australia, will no longer follow this pattern and will likely refuse to have anything to do with the Paris accord
At the same time, the US and European Union will undertake to seriously reduce CO2 emissions by another 26-28% in the next 10 years.  For the US, a 40% reduction by 2030; for the EU, at great cost to their economies and to the standard of living of their populations.

President Obama has already signed an Executive Order March 19 directing the federal government to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 percent from 2008 levels over the next decade, and to increase the share of renewable energy in the government’s electricity supply to 30 percent over the same period. The New York Times reports the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions are less than one percent of total US emissions, although the federal government is the single biggest user of energy in the U.S. 
Obama’s war on coal is indeed making electricity prices “skyrocket” -- just as he promised in 2008, when he ran for president.  Voters were beguiled by the vision of “slowing the rise of the oceans” and of “saving the climate.”  Little did they realize that they were being fed nonsensical science and that high energy prices would instead lead to the growth of poverty.  Had they had the good sense to look at the European experience, they might have rejected Obama’s siren song.  Blame, if you will, the mainstream media, TV, Hollywood, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and the rest of the green lobby.  George W. Bush could have saved the situation but he didn’t.

Meanwhile, many of the States are banding together to fight EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” in the courts.  In addition, Congress is reminding the White House that any US commitment in Paris can be cancelled by a future president.
The question is whether such an agreement is binding on the United States.  The White House will attempt to argue that this is an international agreement and not a Treaty that has to be sent to the Senate for ratification.  However, Congress will argue otherwise and will announce that any Paris agreement is an executive one, not binding on the United States, revocable by future presidents. 
The US Senate will recall that in 1997 they voted unanimously for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution against any unilateral US restriction on emissions -- if it results in economic damage.  Senator Byrd (D-WV) wanted to protect coal mining; Hagel (R-NE) wanted to protect the US from unfair economic competition.  It is interesting that our Secretary of State, John Kerry, voted for Byrd-Hagel at that time, as well as some other senators, like firebrand Barbara Boxer. Chuck Hagel is no longer a US Senator but we hope he will step up and remind people of his 1997 Resolution. 
No significant warming for past 18 years
Meanwhile, the climate continues to plateau; no significant warming has occurred in nearly 20 years -- in spite of a greater than 10% increase in CO2. 
Scientists, both alarmists and skeptics, are still trying to explain this “pause” -- as it is sometimes called.  The word Pause denotes an expectation that the climate will again warm -- although no one has any acceptable hypothesis as to when the warming might resume, if ever. 
But since climate has historically moved in cycles, and since we expect a recovery from the Little Ice Age of 1400-1850, we expect to see some natural warming in the next hundred to two hundred years.  On the other hand, since the present interglacial (“Holocene”) period has now lasted 12,000 years, longer than the average interglacial within the last million years or so, many predict the onset of another full glaciation.
It would be extremely ironic if another such a glaciation were to start shortly after a Paris agreement that is trying to prevent a global warming. 
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.  An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute.  He co-authored NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.  In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See NIPCCreport.org].  For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.


Bastardi, former chief long range forecaster at Accuweather and master weather predictor for WeatherBell Analytics, blasted President Obama's "absurd" claim thatclimate change is a factor for the rise in terrorism. He then turned his ire towards the media and implored them to do their job and counter these false claims.
In a series of messages posted to Twitter, Bastardi replaced the impassioned rhetoric, and media ignorance, with scientific weather maps and historical facts:




On Friday, Bastardi published an opinion piece to The Patriot Post continuing his fight against absurd claims, but this time set his sights on the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists that are driving the policies of the president. In his article "Disaster Du Jour," Bastardi writes:
Sometimes I think the AGW crowd is like a swarm of locusts, moving from field to field. It’s actually a great strategy because there’s always going to be some location on earth [sic] where some kind of extreme is occurring — though, in most places, the weather is tranquil the majority of the time. If it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be so many people on the planet, which I suspect is another agenda that drives all this. Simply find a place where a rare event is occurring, then blast headlines that claim it’s because man is destroying the planet.
Bastardi takes on the California drought concern, reminding that it's not only a natural occurrence, but is not helped by "atrocious planning" and federal guidelines that protect indigenous tiny three-inch long fish, the Delta smelt, rather than diverting lake water to residents.
The same concerns were broadcast just three years ago, Bastardi said, when Texas and the southern Great Plains were suffering from drought. Then, Bastardi and his colleagues predicted a reversal of the situation. Using current meteorological maps, his article shows that not only has it reversed, but it continues to do so. He writes:
But do you hear anyone who has turned the focus to the California drought pointing out that the hysteria in the southern Plains is reversing?
To be sure, the Pacific, which is going through a similar cycle as the 1950s when it suddenly cooled, then warmed for a couple of years, will cool again. And with so many more people living in the South and in California, this is an adaptation-to-nature problem, not a let’s-all-act-to-change-nature problem as it’s being advertised. But the media blindly follows the radical missive of the AGW agenda, so the disaster du jour rules the headlines.
Al Gore's warning back in 1992 about a hole in the ozone was taken to task. With those warnings still alive and well, Bastardi reasons that if the ozone hole is opening up again, that means it must have closed at some point. He wondered why questions like this don't appear from the media: "Well, why did it close up so it can open up again; isn't that natural?" Same goes for drought and floods, he said.
To illustrate that such alarmism is nothing new, Bastardi uncovered an article from a 1953Popular Mechanics Magazine that sounded eerily similar to what we hear today:
There's little doubt about our changing climate. The fierce winters of yesterday are disappearing, tornadoes and hurricanes are becoming more vicious and weather trends aren't "trends" any more. They can't be depended upon. Just about anything can happen — and does.
Bastardi explains that this reaction was because of "a similar cyclical pattern in the 1950s" surrounding the drought in the southern Plains. Back then, Bastardi said, they were blaming the weather on the affects from the Atom Bomb: "Now they blame it on CO2. We know the former was wrong, and it’s very highly probable the latter is too. The common denominator in both is the cyclical nature of the climate, inherent in the design of the system."
In a final note, Bastardi points to another accurate prediction from a former president who, concerned about the growth of the military-industrial complex, warned of the potential disaster "by task forces of scientists" whose costly research could end up driving federal policies. In Dwight Eisenhower's own words, the mentality of today's "disaster du jour" crowd is on full display:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

No comments:

Post a Comment