Is the Whole Anti-CO2 Hysteria Campaign Just a Distraction??

I agree that the leaders are after power. But this whole thing could not be done without a lot of money. I see the fingerprints of a well-funded PR campaign all over it. And the corporate media would not be so united behind it if the owners were not fully on board with it. That tells me it's a scam, and the people who are falling for it are being scammed the most.

 

As usual no referencing no support for anything you post

 

The standard of science is clear: ability to predict empirical observations -- a standard that AGW theory not coincidentally always fails to meet.

GARBAGE. AGW theory requires constant FABRICATION and retroactive FALSIFICATION of observed evidence. Not to mention the erasure of its history of unanimously failed prognostications.

Here's a question: what empirical observation would falsify CO2-AGW theory? I'm talking about an observation that people could verify for themselves, and could not be falsified by NASA, NOAA, etc. to conform to AGW theory.

 

I've given lots of supporting evidence.

Thanks for proving me right.

 

No, they are not. Insurance policies are actuarially sound, and backed by assets. Warren Buffett rightly calls derivatives weapons of mass financial destruction.

 

They absolutely are. They are a way to reduce risk. And they all paid off in the financial crisis. The assets are the houses.

 

No. They are a way to gamble.

The taxpayer paid off.

Which the lenders have refused to foreclose and liquidate because they have to keep prices up. And they are able to get away with that, and pay themselves even bigger bonuses, because the taxpayer made good their losses.

 

They are insurance. Read “Good Derivatives - A Story of Financial and Environmental Innovation” by Richard Sandor

Tarp was paid back with interest. Taxpayers did not pay off anything.

Mark to market artificially reduced prices. Investors wanted to buy them up but the government refused to sell at the low prices.

 

Garbage.

ROTFL!! TARP bailouts were repaid with other bailouts, especially government loans which have NOT been repaid.

No it didn'.

It was private banksters that refused to foreclose and sell, so they could keep prices up, keep housing unaffordable, and keep shoveling unearned interest income into their own pockets.

 

And AGW theory has been superb at that. For example, the temp prediction has been within 10%.

In stark contrast, deniers can't even get the direction of the change correct. Their error rate is over 100%.

That's a lunatic conspiracy theory on your part, like nearly everything you now post.

I've listed some here several times before. How did you miss it? No matter, let's list some again.

1. A decrease in CO2 levels (over the medium-term, around 10 years).
2. A decrease in temperatures
3. A decrease in sea level.
4. An increase in stratospheric temperature
5. A decrease in backradiation
6. An increase in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands.
7. A lack of increase in specific humidity
8. Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
9. Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
10. Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

Now, your turn. What empirical observations could falsify your beliefs, over the medium-term? If you can't name a whole bunch, then your beliefs are obviously entirely religious in nature.

Hypocritical and thus invalid, being you don't hold any other branch of science to that standard, and you obviously won't meet the standard yourself.

Whiny conspiracy gibberish, indicating you know all the real data contradicts your fanatical religious beliefs.

 

Nope. It predicted far higher temperatures by now.

That's an absurd falsehood:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06...-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up/
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/06/new-video-precisely-as-scientists-predicted/
https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/

Etc., etc.

Bald falsehood. Unbelievers have been proved exactly correct: there is no crisis, no emergency, temperatures are not rising, etc.

That would not disprove the theory.

\
Already happened 1940-1970.

 

How can you possibly make a statement like this if you think all temperature records are fake?

Show me a model that ignores the radiative forcing from CO2 which has done better over the entire paleoclimate and instrumental temperature record.

And again...how do you know the global mean temperature is not rising?

 

Because it's true.

CO2 has a small effect, so why would an empirically valid model delete it?

Well, it's obviously rising half the time and falling the other half, if you want to be technical. The point is that it is not tracking CO2. I see no credible empirical evidence of unusual warming. However, I see a lot of misleading and disingenuous garbage from the obviously well funded anti-CO2 scare campaign. That tells me something.

 

Ok, but you keep saying that all of these global temperature datasets are fake. So which dataset are you looking at?

 

Absolutely true,which is why it triggers you. Remember, we know the actual facts, so you can't snow us with propaganda. That only works on the other deniers. For the same reasons we know flat-earthers are pushing fraud, we know you are pushing fraud.

Contrast the success of the climate models to the abject failure of your side. For 40+ years, you've been predicting cooling nonstop. The climate models are within 10% error. Your side's error is over 100%. So why should anyone pay attention to your side?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

 

Wow. You really garbled the formatting there. Let me try to fix it up.

Got it. If you see any data you don't like, you declare it's been falsified. That makes your theory is entirely unfalsifiable, which pushes it from the realm of science into the realm of religion.

Happening, at least a decline in sea ice.

According to AFM, global warming increases food production. You all need to get your talking points squared away.

Clearly happening.

So, 2 out of 3, your theory looks to be falsified.

So you say the Higgs Boson is a fraud? The 13.8 billion year age of the universe is a fraud? Black holes are a fraud? After all, people can directly observe none of that.

Needless to say, you don't say that. Your standard is wildly hypocritical.

The actual temperature record will no doubt contradict you, causing you to proclaim the temperature record is a fraud.

 

It's the new opiate of the people. Misanthropy is the fastest growing religious belief in the western world. It is epitomized by the use of the word "unnatural". "Unnatural" is a misanthropic word reserved for human beings and that which is uniquely human. I believe in the natural and the supernatural, but I don't believe that anything is unnatural.

In today's woke world, the more one hates humanity, the more woke they are.

 

somehow you seem to be willfully ignorant

show me one scientist who has EVER SAID ghg are the only thing that impacts climate?
It is abundantly clear that where are multiple factors that impact climate
These multiple factors have been extensively researched

So that, for example, we understand how volcanos, or asteroid impacts, or various orbital fluctuations, solar luminance, or albedo can impact climate.

and since we know about these factors.... we can also study, track, and calculate the impacts of these forcing factors. And so, for example, we can figure out that volcanos are not changing the climate, nor are asteroids, nor are orbital fluctuations, nor are changes in solar activity....

Scientists have studied and predicted that ghg could Chang the climate.... of all the potential climate forcing factors.... change in ghg is the one thing that could potentially be the cause if climate change

but let’s get down to reality...
It is a fact that 150 years ago. Scientists studied and recognized the importance of ghg
so for 150 years, we have know the theoretical potential of ghg to impact the climate
And that prediction was tha ghg could create climate warming
And in the last 50 years.... subsequent rapid industrialization... have dramatically increased ghg in the atmosphere..... and low and behold, climate is warming

..that is the basic theory, the theories prediction, and the the results that conform to the theory

Now, why don’t you provide a single alternate climate theory where predicted results conform to that theory. You cannot do that.
OTOH, I can provide multiple examples of so-called skeptic theories predicting immanent cooling. All of those alternate theories are wrong based upon whether the correctly anticipate future directions in in climate change

 

And yet you cannot prove that CO2 emissions are causing the current warming. Read the free reference I’ve provided a link to.

 

Do you agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas whose physical properties can be measures
And, that, all things being equal, more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would have a warming impact?

please repost your link

 

This was proved in the mid 1800's that CO2 redirects infrared radiation back to the source. The effect of this behavior on the climate system was first quantified in the late 1800's. Since then we've had a massive quantity of evidence pile up spanning nearly all disciplines of science that have improved our understanding and which all point to a single truth.

What you present is largely "nuh-uh" arguments from sources that contribute no original research or new insights to the science. I ask people over and over again on this forum that you know of a better theory that can explain ALL observations from the paleoclimate and instrumental record and which is consistent with all other disciplines of science that is better than what we already have then bring it forward for review. I've been trying to educate myself on climate science for my than a decade and I have yet to see even a single alternate theory can even come close to matching observations. And most of these alternate theories are so astonishingly bad that they can't even get the direction of the temperature change correct over only a few decades nevermind the last 500 million years.

 

Have you read the free reference in the link that I posted ??

 

ROTFL!!

The data falsifiers are pushing fraud.

The models have grossly overestimated warming.

That's just false.

That's just false.

That's just false.

I notice all of the comparison data sets in this graph are known to be fraudulent, and have been altered, often retroactively, to agree with the models.

 

Even just comparing the previous versions of the data with the new, altered data for the same periods shows the data are fake.

 

Plus all of these data sets are contaminated by urban heating and land use effects with no accurate way of correction.