The Climate Alarmist 97% Lie !!!

I guess you hadda say something. At least it wasn't a thousand words of stupidity

 

See... you were oh so close be actually being right here. Scientists don't do opinions because their methods and their data don't support them. And then, you wrecked on the shoals. So everyone agrees that climate changes. Nothing special in that observation. Literally everyone knows this. Then you suggest that it's caused by human activity... see, that's where the wheels start falling off. Clearly, nothing of the sort has actually been demonstrated... And then that last one.. "consequences will be negative"... there you go crafting an opinion not found in the science... So see...?? You were so close but then you just choked or something before you got it right...

 

Agree with almost everything you wrote except point 3. From what I have read, the consequences MAY be negative for certain humans depending on where they live and MAY be positive for others depending on where they live. There is no denying the astronomical rise in crop yields which still hasn't shown any signs of abatement. This would be expected in the face of a warming climate and rising CO2 and the data confirms the expectation (I know that nitrogen fertilizer kind of messes up my argument).

 

I’ve been saying this for years. Im 69 years old and according to the alarmist, I should either be dead, starving, freezing or sweltering.

Here’s what I know. Global warming is big business. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy and I’m sure many more non-governmental organizations solicit millions from private donors and government to further their agenda. Then we have the EPA, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and I’m sure many more government agencies, granting global warming money at anything that moves. Just about every scientific organization which is dependent on grant money has released a statement saying “something must be done” about global warming. Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. I doubt any have been funded to find the opposite. If you throw billions of dollars at one question, how could smart, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of predictions, projections and scenarios.

Follow the money folks.

 

Much earlier than that.


15 spectacularly stupid predictions from the first Earth Day

 

Yup, it's so "rapid," that is has stalled for over twenty years now.

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

Scientists who benefit from the man-made global warming line were puzzled. So they just tweaked their data collection, jiggered their computer models, and blamed the ocean for mysteriously absorbing all that heat. Now their new computer models predict a straight line with nothing but warming from now until eternity, and it's full gloom and doom once again.

 

No, it has not stalled for 20 years. Hottest years on record:
1: 2016
2: 2015
3: 2017
4: 2018
5: 2014
6: 2010
7: 2005
8: 2013
9: 2009
10: 1998

 

Which really does not matter, because even the term "on record" is subjective. We never had the ability to so accurately measure global temps all over the planet, as we do today. so claiming we are warming faster than we ever have in human history, is dishonest and subjective.

Even a few decades ago, we did not have arrays of ocean weather buoys, satellites, and weather instrument enclosures, etc... Many of the locations where we were measuring the temperature for our past records, have had their environments compromised by human development. so we cannot even compare 1819 with 2019.

We are warming out of the LIA, and no one can tell us if or when it will slow. Blaming it on humans, and demanding we turn over our lives and wealth over to an agenda driven, all powerful central government, so they can ostensibly stop "catastrophic man-made global warming," to me, it's insane.

I'm all for reducing the chemicals and gases we pump into our air, earth and water, but this insanity of turning our lives over to greedy, corrupt government politicians and bureaucrats, that I will oppose.

 

Yup! "On record" isn't even a valid determination, the sample size is so tiny compared to the age of the earth. The Climate Change worshipers kneel at the alter of their Saints, those who wish to profit from the hysteria and those who have evil motives to enslave humans through taxing and rationing conventional means of energy production. Only those in cahoots with them or brain dead greenies who are useful idiots for their masters believe in this nonsense. It truly is a cult religion..

 

Robert Francis O'Rourke says it's ten years so,

 

No, the term on record is quite objective. It means we were warmer in 2016 than any other year that we have keeping accurate systematic and global instrumental records, since about 1880. Our measurements especially in the past aren't 100% accurate, but nothing in science is. Scientists do a great job adjusting their data for problem with past data and they known them well. You can't make any global temperature measurement with 100% confidence and some adjustment by very skilled professionals is needed to give accurate records with a livable margin of error.

I think it is fair to blame the warming on humans if there is sufficient evidence to point to CO2 emissions as the most likely cause. Also, how does the government benefit from global warming? Globally, governments have been slow to act on climate change because doing something will require replacing our energy infrustructure, and greatly hurting the economy, and the action needed isn't affordable. If I was in government, I would find a fake threat that wasn't so economically damaging to deal with.

 

This is obvious to anyone who is well-read on the issue.

Those who live in an echo chamber and refuse to seek our information that conflicts with their almost religious-like beliefs are still not aware of how the fake 97 percent figure was reached...

 

There are a thousand ways of measuring it and a thousand answers and they all coincide in three things: 1- That global warming is happening 2- that it's caused by human activity and 3- that the least we do to address it the worse the consequences for human society will be.

What absolute and utter nonsense. If nothing were done, even in the unlikely event that there were somebody out there not directly affected by the climatic effects of global warming itself, the devastating effects to the global economy would be so great that it would create a completely different world.

So this statement shows not only ignorance about Science, it shows ignorance about the economy of the world works globally.

 

What "everyone agrees" on is irrelevant. Only thing that matters in Science is what they can prove through peer-reviewed studies that follow the Scientific Method. And 100% of those prove that AGW is a fact.

If you discard all peer-reviews scientific studies published in the last 20 years, you mean?

Completely found in Science. So much so, that it was incorporated into the Consensus opinion within the last 20 years. 20 years ago, the consensus opinion only had 2 points: That Climate Change was real, and that it was caused by human activity. It was pretty much accepted that, if left unchecked, the consequences of this would be dire, but science was not prepared to render a definite verdict. There was some hope, however slight, that other conditions might compensate for the warming effect. That some of the greenhouse gases might dissipate or be absorbed naturally... and such... But the evidence has accumulated in one direction only. To the point where it's undeniable. How dire... we don't know yet. But all projections are very negative now.

 

Dude just listed about twenty that disagree...

 

Yay! Civilization gets to re-live the neolithic revolution!

Some progress!

 

Lets examine one of your key statements: "that it's caused by human activity " That implies that natural forces have nothing to do with it. That is one thing you cannot prove. This "97% of scientists" also does not make it true.

I have said many times that man has an effect on the weather. It would be stupid to think otherwise. Also, it is nearly impossible for man to have any effect except to add warming. There is no man made mechanism which would result in cooling.

Now. lets get to the real issue. How much effect has man had. 10% of the warming, 50% of the warming, 90% of the warming? That is where scientists disagree. Their answers have varied that much.

Now, for the more important issue. What can man realistically do about it or more important, what can the US do about it?. In spite of all the rhetoric from some of the more radical democratic candidates, the high cost with a completely unknown result makes such proposals completely unrealistic along with a completely unpredictable results. If disaster is coming, we would be better off trying to figure out how to live with such a disaster than stopping it.

That is a remarkably ignorant statement. Global implies the entire earth from the molten center to the cold stratosphere. Can you say for sure that that molten center is heating up or cooling down and that it has no effect on what happens on he surface. I can assure you it does. Small, but it has an effect.

 

Anyone thinks climate doesn't change is an idiot. It always has and it always will. It is also stupid to think that the chief culprit, given every other change that has happened on the planet in the last 150 years, is a 1 part per 10,000 increase in the amount of trace atmospheric gas that in point of fact has failed to prevent ice ages when at least 4 times it's current level.

 

This reminds me of this History Channel documentary I watched, called "Little Ice-Age, Big Chill." In the first twenty minutes of the show they told us what a boon to human existence it was for the people of Europe, North American, Asia, and other human civilizations around the world, during the Medieval Warming Period, "when temperatures were 4-7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, than they are today."

But then, in the last ten minutes of the documentary they go off the rails, contradict everything they said, and predict how catastrophic and destructive it will be if our climate was just a couple degrees warmer.

Watch it here:

 

As if the sun, ocean currents, and complex cycles of the earth, and the solar system are of no concern. As if, the weather and climate must be constant, unchanging and flat, and remain as they were in 1950, or some other arbitrary time in history, and must never deviate. But.... it the climate ever does change.... then humans are the cause, and we need a one world socialist government to order our lives and run our industries and economies, or we will all die from catastrophic man-made climate warming change.

 

Trying to educate climate deniers is like trying to teach road kill how to jump off the pavement.

 

Typical. Can't beat them. Just insult them.

 

Even the measurements we have been taking since the invention of the thermometer are an incomplete blink of an eye, when we look at the earth's climate cycles. The thermometer was inventing smack dab in the Little Ice-Age, so of course and temperature record will show warming. How can it not, when our supposed benchmarks were set during an historically cold period.

 

Don't you warmists have some socialists to hug, or some witches to burn?

 

You are just proving my point. We were in the grips of the frigid LIA when the thermometer came into being, and temperature records were starting to be kept. We started warming out of the LIA in the late 1800s. Science cannot tell us when we were supposed to stop warming. Neither can science tell us what earth climate normal should be.

So how can scientists tell us that we are experiencing abnormal climate temps now? Have they made the determination for when the warming out of the LIA was supposed to stop? When was all warming supposed to come to a halt, where we were supposed to live in this perfectly flat perfect climate, before we humans screwed it up?