Scientists Get Buried In Snow At Davos While Lecturing On Global Warming

No, those are your cult's rules, projected on to the honest people. Why? Because your cult has told you that God approves of lying for TheCause.

It's not us making the endless "Look, a snowflake! Global warming is a fraud!" threads here. Nor do we ever make "Hey, it was hot outside today, so global warming is proven!" threads. Only your side constantly pulls the weather-is-climate crap, so stop lying about it.

 

LOL Let's get this straight. What are you denying? The predictions were made or that they didn't happen? Be specific VanCleef because no one cares if you don't like the article itself.

If you can't even admit the failed predictions by the people you support then you haven't educated yourself at all.

And wrong as usual. The subject is the predictions are fake making their science fake in nature.

As usual proving you wrong is accomplished quite easily.


When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.
Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers.

Can you imagine the misery and consternation and horror this is going to cause in the corrupt, rancid, rent-seeking world of the Climate Industrial Complex?

I can. It will look something like this.

Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say:

Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Natural factors such as the Sun (106 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.

And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

In other words, nobody is denying that climate changes, nobody is denying that the planet has warmed by 0.8 degrees C in the last 150 years, while only a handful deny that carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) has the power to influence temperatures.


What they are saying in their different ways is that “global warming” – as in the big scare story that the planet is heating up at a catastrophic unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2 emissions – is bunk; or that the methods being used to combat the problem are bunk.

Here – courtesy of Kenneth Richard, who has waded through them all – are some examples of what they say.

It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate)

Li et al., 2017

It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation

Yndestad and Solheim, 2017


Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods.

Tejedor et al., 2017

The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity





Climate influenced by natural oscillation (eg El Nino; La Nina)

Belohpetsky et al., 2017

It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation

Park et al., 2017


According to our results, the central Mexican climate has been predominantly controlled by the combined influence of the 20-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the 70-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

Lim et al., 2017

Our study demonstrated that floodfrequency and climate changes at centennial-to-millennial time scales in South Korea have been coupled mainly with ENSO activity

Modern climate in phase with natural variability

Conroy et al., 2017

20th century precipitation variability in southern Tibet falls within the range of natural variability in the last 4100 yr, and does not show a clear trend of increasing precipitation as projected by models

Verdon-Kidd et al., 2017

Overall, the inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of rainfall and runoff observed in the modern record (Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 22% for rainfall, 42% for runoff) is similar to the variability experienced over the last 500 years (CV of 21% for rainfall and 36% for runoff).




Volcano/Tectonic Influence on Climate

Viterito, 2017

This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.

Huhtemaa and Helama, 2017

[M]ore than half of the agricultural crises in the study region can be associated with cooling caused by volcanism.

Greenhouse Effect Not the Main Driver of Climate

Blaauw, 2017

This paper demonstrates that globalwarming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory

Munshi, 2017

…No evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale.

Reinhart, 2017

Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change

Climate Models are Unreliable/The Pause is Real

Blackall, 2017

The science publication Nature Climate Change this year published a study demonstrating Earth this century warmed substantially less than computer-generated climate models predict. Unfortunately for public knowledge, such findings don’t appear in the news.

Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017

Observations indicate that the Arctic sea ice cover is rapidly retreating while the Antarctic sea ice cover is steadily expanding. State-of-the-art climate models, by contrast, typically simulate a moderate decrease in both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers.

Ahlström et al., 2017

We conclude that climate bias-induced uncertainties must be decreased to make accurate coupled atmosphere-carbon cycle projections.

Zhou and Wang, 2017

Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1998. This cooling trend is referred to as the global “warming hiatus”

Renewable Energy/Climate Policies are Failing

Janković and Shultz, 2017

[A] preindustrial climate may remain a policy goal, but it is unachievable in reality

Heard et al., 2017

While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible.

Emery et al., 2017

The total social costs of ethanol blends are higher than that of gasoline, due in part to higher life-cycle emissions of non-GHG pollutants and higher health and mortality costs per unit.

Qiao et al., 2017

BEVs [Battery Electric Vehicles] are designed to obtain more environmental benefits, but the energy consumption and GHG emissions of BEV production are much larger than those of ICEV [Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles] production in China.

Wind Power Harming the Environment

Frick et al., 2017

Our resultssuggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America.

Liu and Barlow, 2017

The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.

Vasilakis et al., 2017

Numerous wind farms are planned in a region hosting the only cinereous vulture population in south-eastern Europe […]

[…] Even under the most optimistic scenario whereby authorized proposals will not collectively exceed the national target for wind harnessing in the study area (960 MW), cumulative collision mortality would still be high (17% of current population) and likely lead to population extinction.

In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science.

Together with these 400 new papers, that makes 900 science papers in the last two years casting doubt on global warming.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/10/25/3240755/

Pro Tip: When your side has to run around screaming everyone is misinterpreting them it isn't a good sign

See when you put your faith in scientists whose only existence is to suck on the breast of governments for their research money they have to keep making constant doom and gloom scenarios to stay relevant with people who believe in the religion of man made climate change more than any science you can pretend exists and they fabricate the lack of support because your side cannot stomach the reality that you are consistently proven wrong each and every year.

Thanks for running away from my challenge of finding any long term prediction from the failed scientists and celebrities on your side getting even one prediction right. [/QUOTE]

 

Good Lord are you always this sloppy? Most of those predictions were scientists before climate science was even a profession. Ecologists and biologists all making the same failed predictions.

If you are going to enter the debate at least read the material before you embarrass yourself yet again.

Go ahead and answer the same challenge I gave to VanCleef. Name one of your fake science climate experts who ever got a long term prediction right on world temperatures.

Go ahead.

 

Bzzzzzzzzzz WRONG

The Telegraph
Jan 2018

The Planetarium

NY Times
Sun Is Getting Hotter, Satellite Data Indicate
Sep 1997

 

It's not a peer reviewed paper. It's not refuting peer reviewed papers. It's an opinion piece. I understand a majority of your citation is blogs, but seriously stop. This is a science thread, not a subjective argument were you can post random opinion to refute decades of hard data.

Actual peer reviewed climate papers say AGW is real, over 90% of them.

Actual fact check on climate models, via peer reviewed study: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming

Over 90% of Climate Science is not fake. You would have to provide mass citation that the entire field is fake. How is that possible when you can't even refute 1 line from the 13 federal agency report?

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

If you do not respond with quotes from the above report, with peer reviewed studies after each quote specifically (unlike the false analysis of those 53-400 studies) stating that quote was wrong, you will have automatically conceded to me.

Fake News. Literally. Fact checked as false by the actual authors of those papers. They do not state AGW or GW are false.

FALSE

https://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/
https://www.snopes.com/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/500-scientists-global-warming-consensus.htm

The authors of those papers literally came out and said that they are not refuting or denying GW. Many of authors of these papers agree with AGW.

"They are absolutely incorrect!!!! Quite the opposite, the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused — and describes future scenarios. Yet another example of downright lies."

"My study, and almost all I saw mentioned on the blog post, are studies of climate change in the past. My study investigates connections between different parts of the climate system during climate events that happened over 10,000 years ago. Studying climate change in the past can provide context for recent climate change. However, my study in no way investigates or tries to attribute the causes of recent climate change. It does not deal with human influences on climate at all."

"Our paper presents a 280-year sea surface temperature record based on the ratio of strontium to calcium in corals we sampled in the Dry Tortugas National Park. It shows that sea surface temperatures measured over many decades in the Florida Straits are variable, and that variation has been dominated for nearly the past three centuries by a natural oscillation called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. […] Neither of these findings refutes the role of anthropogenic activity in global climate change."

"I do not agree with this assessment of my work. The seawater temperature data clearly show a warming."

"The article on Breitbart.com is so bad that the author did not even realize that the figure extracted from my paper is not my new data record but the record of the northern Spain atmospheric temperature anomaly, produced by [another group in 2011] that I have used for comparison. […] [Our] results agree with both the global and regional projections that indicate this region of Europe with highest potential vulnerability in regard to current global warming."

"Anthropogenic climate change is characterized by variable climate responses across the globe. No climate record taken at a single point in space is representative of the global climate."

Another example of your silly citation. A Brietbart article linking to a fictitious blog. C'mon man. This is a science thread, stop with story time trash.

Oh, my, god....rofl you did not just use a conspiracy website to refute over 90% of climate studies, 13 federal agencies, and the biggest science organizations.

(P.S. I fact checked that site in the above links, If you're gonna complain about me just attacking your "sources" rather than their content.)

Good job. Using conspiracy blogs to refute an entire field of science. You need to take debate class or something. Badly.

"Because almost none of the papers cited actually support the argument that global warming is a myth, we rank Delingpole’s loosely researched claim that 400 papers published in 2017 prove such to be false."

You're done here. You think an entire field of science is wrong due to a few Breitbart articles. Holy cow. That's very very bad.

Science vs. Blogs. Your sourcing is horrific. AGW is real until shown otherwise.

 

He made that statement by drawing a trendline from the 1986 minimum to the 1997 minimum...a single cycle. Interestingly the trendline from the maximums was down during that period so I'm not sure why that wasn't mentioned. At any rate you should look at the data after 1997. It's quite clearly down. And everyone agrees with this both AGW skeptics and advocates. Actually you should look at all of the data not just the data during an 11 year period. Total solar irradiance is declining and most experts (and even deniers) believe we are approaching a grand minimum. This is why deniers have been predicting global cooling and imminent ice ages for 2 decades now.

 

If you guys want to see how bad guavaball is at this,

When the actual author of the quoted study tells you that you, a guy using a blog, are dead wrong.

The sting. The pain.

Blog me, bro.

 

Who is he? Those "Mine" were different studies dating back three decades

Actually you should look at all of the data not just the data during an 11 year period.

Actually, you should look at all the, ah hell with it, it wouldn't satisfy your ideology, folks like you will not be happy until you're paying $275 dollars a month to stay WARM in the winter

 

The last entry is based on research from Richard Wilson. I read his paper. You should to. Everybody should.

The middle entry is talking about processes that occur over millions or even billions of years and has little relevance today.

The first entry is a mystery to me. I could find it the research. Can you provide a link?

 

I must have missed that part, Commissar Climate Change. All I saw her babbling about was 'changing the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years'. Oh, and then there was that 'first time in human history' jive. I bet Marx and Mao would have something to say about that.

And what's up with that "fundamentally transform" dog whistle that we keep hearing out of "progressives" these days? If it's not some ANSWERnik like Obama it's eco-socialists like Christiana Figueres. What are all these progs trying to be coy about?

The only people who want a global commie utopia that has a dictatorial centralized power controlling all aspects of our lives are eco-Stalinists like you. Thanks for projecting, though - that always has its own peculiar entertainment value.

 

Umm... No. "Your side", meaning, I believe those of us who are skeptical of the CO2 conspiracy...according to you... Has NOT predicted imminent cooling. No such thing. Mann was a cooler before he was a warmer. I'd say he was on your side, not mine.

In any event, I haven't predicted anything other than I expect that climate will change. It will either warm, or it wont. But what I don't expect it ever to do is remain consistent, something the AGW faithful seem to expect. More, to ensure that we try to contain global warming, your side seems to be the folks willing to alter heaven and earth to find a way to make climate not change.

I'd say that, more than anything else, is why so many of us are skeptical of your side.

 

No it's you saying "Look, a hurricane! Global warming is real.

 

No - I know you hate statistics, but the figures demonstrate conclusively that the flatearthers are talking through their arses. It is a difficult feat, admittedly, but that doesn't alter the fact that they don't know what they are talking about.

 

In other words "look a hurricane! Global warming is proven is statistics?

 

No, kid - just read the statistics, if you can.

 

Here's some fun statistic showing how fast weather changed before industrialization. Ever hear of the little ice age?

"We estimate a time series model of weather shocks on English wheat yields for the early nineteenth century and use it to predict weather effects on yield levels from 1697 to 1871. This reveals that yields in the 1690s were depressed by unusually poor weather; and those in the late 1850s were inflated by unusually good weather. This has led researchers to overestimate the underlying growth of yields over the period by perhaps 50%. Correcting for this effect would largely reconcile the conflicting primal and dual estimates of productivity growth over the period"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014498314000448

 

Funny stuff here. I would point out that statistics don't demonstrate the curvature of the earth, and frankly it's observable. The only folks seemingly arse yapping are folks, like you, who don't understand the difference. So even if you attempted to come back with, "figures said" BS, you still qualified it by implanting the statistics description.

What defies credulity though, are those of you who seem so transparently wedded to the notion of AGW only because it produces the wedge that you believe will force the "transformational blah blah blah" that you are really wedded to.

I would simply point out that this wealth redistribution plan that you believe you will get a piece of is as unlikely as expecting that others won't be able to see through your petty little scheme....

 

Yup, winter happening somewhere disproves the evidence that the average temperatures of the planet increased by an average 2 F.

 

If you know better than the world's climatologists. Professor. publish your thesis for examination by your peers. I doubt it'd be worth much time.

 

I don't know what you are talking about, but if you know better than the climatologists, publish.

 

So say the cult that constantly gets caught manufacturing and manipulating data but meanwhile we see more and more cold events like those in the OP not to mention all the failed predictions like polar bears soon going extinct.

 

And there you have it. This true believer that is such an expert on climate has no knowledge of the little ice age era. Check and mate! Anybody else up for a game? This guy just left the room.

 

The problem with todays "Man" is they far to reactionary for a planet, solar system, galaxy and universe that has been evolving for 4.5 billion years,13.2 billion year and 13.8 billion years old, respectively. Then along comes man for little over 200 thousand years and he has all the answers to the universe

And some climate experts barely 60 years old

 

Every minute must be warmer than the last, or else the world is flat. Heil Trump!

 

Grow up, you silly bugger. Would you take on a plumber who knew as little about pipes as you do about this?