The Global Warming Fraud

[FreethoughtPariah]

The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007​

How many coal fired power plants are there in the world today? Green New Deal??? The EU has 468 – building 27 more… Total 495 Turkey has 56 – building 93 more… Total 149 South Africa has 79 – building 24 more… Total 103 India has 589 – building 446 more… Total 1035 Philippines has 19 – building 60 more… Total 79 South Korea has 58 – building 26 more… Total 84 Japan has 90 – building 45 more… Total 135 China has 2,363 – building 1,171 more… Total = 3,534 That’s 5,615 projected coal powered plants in just 8 countries. USA has 15 – building 0 more…Total = 15 And Democrat politicians with their “green new deal” want to brainwash us and shut down those 15 plants in order to “save” the planet. From 1880 through 2014, earth’s mean temperature increased an average of 1.17 degrees Fahrenheit per century. When seasonal temperatures in most states of America normally fluctuate over a range of 100 degrees or more, we are supposed to commit trillions of dollars more out of fear of a 1.17 degree F. increase per century? This is insanity. Hundreds of peer reviewed papers published in 2016 were skeptical of the “consensus” of human caused climate change.​ http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/#sthash.jolUjsyg.dpbs​

 

[TSwizzle]

Grasping at straws in the wind. I expect you are feeling a bit of anxiey, that feeling you get in the gut that pushes you to make a weak knee jerk reaction post.

Anxiety? Not in the slightest. You are the one that frets about a non existent looming catastrophe.

It really is a religion for you.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007​

​

Fact check: 2001 climate change statement misrepresented to disparage climate models

An IPCC statement from 2001 about "climate states" such as weather and El Niño has been misrepresented online to disparage climate modeling.

www.usatoday.com

This was the first thing that came up when I cut and pasted your quote into Google.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007​

​

Fact check: 2001 climate change statement misrepresented to disparage climate models

An IPCC statement from 2001 about "climate states" such as weather and El Niño has been misrepresented online to disparage climate modeling.

www.usatoday.com

This was the first thing that came up when I cut and pasted your quote into Google.

This was the second thing:
"But they can successfully predict important broader trends."

Their models have failed miserably, for forty years.

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” – Climate scientist Stephen Schneider, interview with Discover magazine, October, 1989​

British environmental expert James Lovelock now admits he was an “alarmist” regarding global warming. Lovelock previously worked for NASA and became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism. In 2007, Time magazine named Lovelock one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and he won the Geological Society of London’s Wollaston Medal in 2006 for his writings on the Gaia theory. That year he wrote an article in a British newspaper asserting that “before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” (Independent.co.uk, 16 January 2006)​

“If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.​

“Global warming policies are having a disastrous effect on the world’s poorest people.” – Paul Diesen​

Why you are being misled, by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, quoted by the Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998:​

“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”​

Philip E. Tetlock published the results of a study in 2005 that showed experts were no better at predictions than chimps throwing darts. “There’s an inverse relation between fame and accuracy.” – Tetlock​

“The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.” – Robert Jastrow, Scholar, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1949-1950, 1953), Assistant Professor of Physics, Yale University (1953-1954), Chief, NASA Theoretical Division (1958-61), Founding Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1961-1981), NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1968), Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College (1981-1992), Chairman, Mount Wilson Institute (1992–2003), (Died: February 8, 2008)​

1. “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter​

13 OTHER Doomsday Prophecies That Were Debunked​

1. We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.​

2. We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.​

3. The oceans would be dead.​

4. Global Cooling would destroy the world.​

5. Acid rain would destroy our forests.​

6. Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.​

7. We would deplete our natural resources.​

8. We would run out of oil.​

9. The polar ice caps would melt.​

10. Manhattan would be underwater.​

11. People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.​

12. Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.​

13. “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”​

 

[Shadowy Man]

The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007​

​

Fact check: 2001 climate change statement misrepresented to disparage climate models

An IPCC statement from 2001 about "climate states" such as weather and El Niño has been misrepresented online to disparage climate modeling.

www.usatoday.com

The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007​

​

Fact check: 2001 climate change statement misrepresented to disparage climate models

An IPCC statement from 2001 about "climate states" such as weather and El Niño has been misrepresented online to disparage climate modeling.

www.usatoday.com

This was the first thing that came up when I cut and pasted your quote into Google.

This was the second thing:
"But they can successfully predict important broader trends."

Their models have failed miserably, for forty years.

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” – Climate scientist Stephen Schneider, interview with Discover magazine, October, 1989​

British environmental expert James Lovelock now admits he was an “alarmist” regarding global warming. Lovelock previously worked for NASA and became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism. In 2007, Time magazine named Lovelock one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and he won the Geological Society of London’s Wollaston Medal in 2006 for his writings on the Gaia theory. That year he wrote an article in a British newspaper asserting that “before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” (Independent.co.uk, 16 January 2006)​

“If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.​

“Global warming policies are having a disastrous effect on the world’s poorest people.” – Paul Diesen​

Why you are being misled, by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, quoted by the Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998:​

“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”​

Philip E. Tetlock published the results of a study in 2005 that showed experts were no better at predictions than chimps throwing darts. “There’s an inverse relation between fame and accuracy.” – Tetlock​

“The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.” – Robert Jastrow, Scholar, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1949-1950, 1953), Assistant Professor of Physics, Yale University (1953-1954), Chief, NASA Theoretical Division (1958-61), Founding Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1961-1981), NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1968), Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College (1981-1992), Chairman, Mount Wilson Institute (1992–2003), (Died: February 8, 2008)​

1. “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter​

13 OTHER Doomsday Prophecies That Were Debunked​

1. We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.​

2. We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.​

3. The oceans would be dead.​

4. Global Cooling would destroy the world.​

5. Acid rain would destroy our forests.​

6. Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.​

7. We would deplete our natural resources.​

8. We would run out of oil.​

9. The polar ice caps would melt.​

10. Manhattan would be underwater.​

11. People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.​

12. Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.​

13. “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”​

Still all seem to be quotes from 15 years ago or more.

But anyway, can you give that citation I asked for yet? Let’s tackle one thing at a time.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Look it up yourself. Don't be so lazy. You would reject anything I provided anyway.
That's how your side operates, deny, deny, attack personally and maliciously, en masse.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Look it up yourself. Don't be so lazy. You would reject anything I provided anyway.
That's how your side operates, deny, deny, attack personally and maliciously, en masse.

You don’t know that I would reject it. You just assume that. If It is real science then I will gladly look at it without preconception. But since you won’t provide it then what am I left to assume than it isn’t real science?

 

[Jarhyn]

Look it up yourself. Don't be so lazy. You would reject anything I provided anyway.
That's how your side operates, deny, deny, attack personally and maliciously, en masse.

The way we operate sends people to the moon. The way religion operates sends them to a market strapped with explosives.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You arrive on the forum with so much bluster and a gish gallop of bolded and large text but when asked to back up one simple claim you made there’s nothing. Just a sad “look it up for yourself”. Speaks volumes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

13 OTHER Doomsday Prophecies That Were Debunked​

1. We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.​

2. We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.​

3. The oceans would be dead.​

4. Global Cooling would destroy the world.​

5. Acid rain would destroy our forests.​

6. Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.​

7. We would deplete our natural resources.​

8. We would run out of oil.​

9. The polar ice caps would melt.​

10. Manhattan would be underwater.​

11. People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.​

12. Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.​

13. “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”​

A quarter of this list are things that didn't happen because we took action to avert the problem. And another third are things that are on the way towards happening.

And we aren't out of the woods yet on the ozone layer, rogue manufacturers in China are producing large amounts of the troublesome chemicals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look it up yourself. Don't be so lazy. You would reject anything I provided anyway.
That's how your side operates, deny, deny, attack personally and maliciously, en masse.

We look for credible sources. Most of what you post comes from deniers.

 

[steve_bank]

Oh no!! Not large bold text!!

He is like the crazy relative in a fanily alwys spouting peudo science or trying to prive some stupid thing in the old movies.

 

[bilby]

You ignore the message and attack the messenger. The Fallacy of the Ad Hominem Attack.

That sound you just heard was the simultaneous overload of hundreds of irony meters.

 

[Jarhyn]

You ignore the message and attack the messenger. The Fallacy of the Ad Hominem Attack.

That sound you just heard was the simultaneous overload of hundreds of irony meters.

No, the thing about being able to detect when you set off another person's irony meter is you have to be capable of recognizing when you are looking in a mirror. For whatever reason, if you can't recognize when you are looking in a mirror you are also blind to automatic irony detection.

 

[atrib]

Look it up yourself. Don't be so lazy. You would reject anything I provided anyway.
That's how your side operates, deny, deny, attack personally and maliciously, en masse.

Master of the Ctrl-V, and not an original thought in its head. Just another neotheocreo science denier drifting by our shores. He'll be gone soon.

 

[Jarhyn]

Look it up yourself. Don't be so lazy. You would reject anything I provided anyway.
That's how your side operates, deny, deny, attack personally and maliciously, en masse.

Master of the Ctrl-V, and not an original thought in its head. Just another neotheocreo science denier drifting by our shores. He'll be gone soon.

In and out like the tide.

Eventually the wave will crest, become unstable, and break upon its own force against the stalwart foundation that doubt provides into naught but hot air and noise.

 

[steve_bank]

I hope he did not go away.

There has been a definite lack of this kind of poster. Used to be a lot.

Maybe je went back to the mother ship to recuperate and relaod.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Ima gonna grab some popcorn. He hasn't brought up Mt. Vesuvius or volcanoes yet, but I got my bingo card handy!

Hey Pariah, if you're going to post anti science shit here, you should at least post something that hasn't been debunked for over a decade. Are you also a YEC?

Mister Insulter, I know you get your jolllies out of pretending to be sophisticated and superior, but when you make accusations, you had better posit facts and not just jejune insults.
The graph I created has NOT "been debunked for over a decade." Your insults continue by trying to change the subject to "YEC". Very poorly done and terribly unscientific of you.

1. I didn't insult you anywhere.

2. Some people aren't worth trying to have a conversation with, because it's obvious they aren't discussing in good faith, or they are like a teligious fanstic who wouldn't change thier mind even if the facts ran thrm over, backed up, and did donuts on thier proverbial corpse. Pointing and laughing is the only real option.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ima gonna grab some popcorn. He hasn't brought up Mt. Vesuvius or volcanoes yet, but I got my bingo card handy!

Hey Pariah, if you're going to post anti science shit here, you should at least post something that hasn't been debunked for over a decade. Are you also a YEC?

<Insult removed>, I know you get your jolllies out of pretending to be sophisticated and superior, but when you make accusations, you had better posit facts and not just jejune insults.
The graph I created has NOT "been debunked for over a decade." Your insults continue by trying to change the subject to "YEC". Very poorly done and terribly unscientific of you.

1. I didn't insult you anywhere.

2. Some people aren't worth trying to have a conversation with, because it's obvious they aren't discussing in good faith, or they are like a teligious fanstic who wouldn't change thier mind even if the facts ran thrm over, backed up, and did donuts on thier proverbial corpse. Pointing and laughing is the only real option.

To answer the question, it sure seems like they are a YEC.

They seem to reject entirely the logically necessary implications of the following facts:
1. That the principle of least action dictates the second law of entropy, and as such that all present gradients in our universe will reduce over time.
2. That a subset of available configurations of stuff is currently in representation in our universe, and that such configurations as exist may lead to the production of configurations that do not as yet exist.
3. That some such configurations are represented by our genetics, a reproducing system of whatever origin.
4. That there are more efficient or effective configurations as to ensure reproductive capacity than the ones we currently reflect, within our immediate environment.

As such these four facts together demand that evolution must happen.

It must happen in any situation where there is "energy", an imperfect reproduction process, unrepresented beneficial states accessible within the configuration states of such imperfect reproductions.

I would hazard I am far from the first to pull this necessity from those four facts. In fact I think I recall in college someone mentioning vaguely how entropy drives evolution and my response was something not dissimilar from the above, connecting all those pieces.

Also, it's funny because yes, they deny the ToE:

Spoiler

Richard Dawkins' books are full of scientific errors and ignorance …

Name them.

The Blind Watchmaker
P. 46 “I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare.”

(No it couldn’t. Not ever, ever. Dawkins provides his own proof, contradicting himself yet again:

From P. 315: “Dover’s alleged rival to natural selection could never work, not just never in a million years, but never in a million times longer than the universe has existed, never in a million universes each lasting a million times as long again.”

(The reference is one chance in 10 to the 301st power. Our Shakespeare typing monkey far exceeds such impossible odds in trying to type merely the first 301 letters of the FIRST PAGE of the FIRST BOOK of Shakespeare, or one chance in 26 letters to the 301st power.)

P 81: “An ancient animal with 5% of an eye . . . used it for 5% vision.”

(95% of an eye cannot confer any vision when the optic nerve is severed, the retina is detached, or any of dozens of possible conditions which cause blindness exist.)

P 146: (Our ‘maximum amount of luck’) is one chance in 10 to the 20th power.

P 160: “ . . .it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen....It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability.”

P 230: Evolutionists “despise so-called scientific creationists”.

(Such intolerance for biochemists who understand far better than Richard Dawkins the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis, which Dawkins represents as A>B>C>D. That ignorant alphabeticization is pathetic. )

Dawkins colleague at Oxford said "His book makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

I wrote to Dawkins citing pages of his errors and all he could do is the same responses I get here from his followers, name-calling. How petty, how unscientific, how ignorant.

"Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan

it's especially funny because apparently they don't know the difference between a large but finite number and "infinity".

"Enough time" may involve more time than in that large but finite span. Of course, if someone doesn't understand the difference between "a lot" and "infinite", well...

 

[Swammerdami]

To answer the question, it sure seems like they are a YEC.

They seem to reject entirely the logically necessary implications of the following facts:
1. That the principle of least action dictates the second law of entropy, and as such that all present gradients in our universe will reduce over time.
2. That a subset of available configurations of stuff is currently in representation in our universe, and that such configurations as exist may lead to the production of configurations that do not as yet exist.
3. That some such configurations are represented by our genetics, a reproducing system of whatever origin.
4. That there are more efficient or effective configurations as to ensure reproductive capacity than the ones we currently reflect, within our immediate environment.

As such these four facts together demand that evolution must happen.

It must happen in any situation where there is "energy", an imperfect reproduction process, unrepresented beneficial states accessible within the configuration states of such imperfect reproductions.

I would hazard I am far from the first to pull this necessity from those four facts. In fact I think I recall in college someone mentioning vaguely how entropy drives evolution and my response was something not dissimilar from the above, connecting all those pieces.

I'd like cites for the phrases I've reddened.

IIUC, entropy (e.g. waste heat) is often produced by "smart" activity like living organics. HOWEVER the best such activities, while producing positive entropy. minimize such production, to achieve more Gibbs free energy — or do I have that backwards?