The Global Warming Fraud

[FreethoughtPariah]

If Carbon Dioxide Hysteria were as "proven" and "valid" as the zealots swear, there could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have written scientific papers and books refuting the exaggerations and nonsense ongoing for over forty years.

I'll point out one big lie that has been used to advance The Big Lie.
It is the Keeling Curve, or as I call it, "The Scary Graph."



The Scary Graph is *accurate* in the sense of numbers and dates. Where it is intentionally misleading is in exaggerating the slope, or increase in scary carbon dioxide, which is so very deadly we drink it in our soft drinks, beer, champagne and Perrier.

Moreover this is the TOTAL increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 96+% of which is produced by decomposing plants and animals.

Wait, it gets better yet. THE dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is ~15,000 ppmv.

Hold on, water vapor is FAR better at capturing infrared radiation, in addition to being far more abundant in the atmosphere.


The increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide runs along the same flat red line above.



It goes downhill from here for the Zealots.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The keeling curve does not exaggerate the slope because the slope can be calculated directly from the graph itself. People need to learn how to read graphs properly before criticizing them.

Yes, water is a greater greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide but it can also easily precipitate out of the atmosphere, which CO2 cannot. And if CO2 warms the atmosphere then the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which further warms the atmosphere.

If there are good arguments against anthropogenic climate change, these are not them.

 

[bilby]

If Carbon Dioxide Hysteria were as "proven" and "valid" as the zealots swear,

Poisoning the well.

You have yet to demonstrate "hysteria" or "zealotry"

there could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have written scientific papers and books

Simple falsehood.

There are eight billion humans, it's trivially easy to find mere thousands who support nonsense.

refuting the exaggerations and nonsense ongoing for over forty years.

More well poisoning.

You have yet to produce a shred of evidence, it's therefore premature to conclude "exaggeration" or "nonsense".

I'll point out one big lie that has been used to advance The Big Lie.

Yet more well poisoning.

You can't start with your conclusion that your opponents are lying, if you want to be taken seriously.

It is the Keeling Curve, or as I call it, "The Scary Graph."

More well poisoning.

Nobody cares what you call it; we care whether you can demonstrate your claims about it.

View attachment 40695

The Scary Graph is *accurate* in the sense of numbers and dates. Where it is intentionally misleading is in exaggerating the slope, or increase in scary carbon dioxide,

It's not misleading, as Shadowy Man has already indicated.

And it's not "scary"; Your desperation to introduce emotional elements, impute them to your opponents, and ridicule them, is no substitute for actually making a case for your position.

which is so very deadly we drink it in our soft drinks, beer, champagne and Perrier.

Non Sequitur.

Nobody is in any way suggesting that carbon dioxide is dangerous to consume. The question at hand is whether it has an effect on climate.

Moreover this is the TOTAL increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 96+% of which is produced by decomposing plants and animals.

This is nonsense; It appears to conflate ephemeral carbon sinks with the long term sinks represented by fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide from plants and animals is cycled out of the atmosphere and back in on timescales not relevant to climate; The carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere in the carboniferous era has been locked away for 300 million years.

Wait, it gets better yet. THE dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is ~15,000 ppmv.

Hold on, water vapor is FAR better at capturing infrared radiation, in addition to being far more abundant in the atmosphere.

Water vapour, like biologically captured carbon dioxide, cycles on short timescales. If there's an excess of water vapour in the atmosphere, it rains until there's not.

Your failure to understand these facts demonstrates clearly that you are currently unqualified to have a useful opinion.

View attachment 40696
The increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide runs along the same flat red line above.

View attachment 40697

Remember your earlier concerns about misleading graphs? You were right to be concerned, but about the wrong graphs.

It goes downhill from here for the Zealots.

Seriously, you have demonstrated nothing other than that:

a) You don't understand the topic
b) You have a pointless emotional investment in the losing side of the debate
and
c) You are trusting people who are lying to you, while accusing those who aren't of being liars.

I recommend that you first learn to think logically, then learn how to tell when you are or are not being lied to, and finally that you learn to trust nobody, particularly not yourself.

Your enthusiasm is great, but you are misapplying it to make a clown of yourself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Moreover this is the TOTAL increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 96+% of which is produced by decomposing plants and animals.

This is one of the big deceptions of the global warming deniers.

While I can't confirm the 96% number it seems quite reasonable. What you are missing is that that 96% is simply the normal cycle of life. Plants grow, taking up CO2. They decay or are eaten, releasing the CO2. Let's look across the back fence--our neighbors have a swimming pool. The [insert profanity of choice] pump runs many hours a day (when the weather is right we like to sleep with the window open. The pump often isn't operating as smoothly as it should) yet the water level of the pool doesn't rise despite how much water it pumps into the pool. Now, if a garden hose that might have 20% of the capacity of the stupid pump were to add water to the pool certainly it wouldn't raise the level, or would it??

Wait, it gets better yet. THE dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is ~15,000 ppmv.

Hold on, water vapor is FAR better at capturing infrared radiation, in addition to being far more abundant in the atmosphere.

Yup, but the amount of water vapor is basically determined by the temperature. It's an amplifier, not a driver. (And how many people these days deal with amplifiers in sound systems??)

View attachment 40696

Your second graph is completely wrong. You are counting CO2 production and calling it increase, never mind that it's balanced by CO2 uptake. 15,400ppm (what's ppmv supposed to be anyway??) of CO2 is not an atmosphere you want to be breathing.

The increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide runs along the same flat red line above.

View attachment 40697

It goes downhill from here for the Zealots.

You need to learn what you're arguing about.

 

[Jarhyn]

@bilby & @Loren Pechtel

You each make excellent points. I would like to see someone actually disassemble that misleading graph a bit, because the claim it is misleading has not yet been supported. It has been asserted as misleading.

I know both of you are better than this, but because I have a car to go rent and a wedding to break myself at, I'm not going to get the time to lay into it myself.

 

[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?

 

[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?

I have an expectation that this is not the first time a person a "pariah" to "(talk)Free thought" has been here.

@bilby & @Loren Pechtel

You each make excellent points. I would like to see someone actually disassemble that misleading graph a bit, because the claim it is misleading has not yet been supported. It has been asserted as misleading.

I know both of you are better than this, but because I have a car to go rent and a wedding to break myself at, I'm not going to get the time to lay into it myself.

So, now that it's been a minute, I see you are each referencing the fact that there are drivers and amplifiers in the system, with the driver being CO2 and the amplifier being H2O.

You have sufficiently shown data to support your claims of misleadingness however it was posted before the claim of such so it was unapparent at the time.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Moreover this is the TOTAL increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, 96+% of which is produced by decomposing plants and animals.

Wait, it gets better yet. THE dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is ~15,000 ppmv.

Hold on, water vapor is FAR better at capturing infrared radiation, in addition to being far more abundant in the atmosphere.

Yup, but the amount of water vapor is basically determined by the temperature. It's an amplifier, not a driver. (And how many people these days deal with amplifiers in sound systems??)

View attachment 40696

Your second graph is completely wrong. You are counting CO2 production and calling it increase, never mind that it's balanced by CO2 uptake. 15,400ppm (what's ppmv supposed to be anyway??) of CO2 is not an atmosphere you want to be breathing.

The increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide runs along the same flat red line above.

View attachment 40697

It goes downhill from here for the Zealots.

You need to learn what you're arguing about.

You do not understand 15,400 ppmv and tell ME I "need to learn what (I'm) arguing about"?
Your haughtiness is misplaced.

I specifically said that water vapor is ~15,000 ppmv, so when added to the paltry CO2 of 400 ppmv, you get.... 15,400 ppmv.

You pretend that semantics is more important than science. "Driver" versus "amplifier."
Oh please. Stop it. The graph is a fraud. The predictions have been fraudulent but they never end.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” – Kevin Trenbarth, IPCC lead author on physical science, regarding the pause in measured warming from 1999 t0 2009​

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015​

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

· Rather than famine, “in the fifty years from 1961 to 2011, global yields of wheat, rice, and maize … each more than doubled,” according to the IPCC.

· “The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.”

October 2021

· “The warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years,” Koonin writes, according to the U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report.
· “Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century,” according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment.

Fear through ignorance - what a terrible way to go through life.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

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.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

@bilby & @Loren Pechtel

You each make excellent points. I would like to see someone actually disassemble that misleading graph a bit, because the claim it is misleading has not yet been supported. It has been asserted as misleading.

1. I explained why it is misleading. You chose to ignore those facts.
2. I have yet to see any of you pals make a remotely valid point in favor of the Global Warming Fraud, much less an "excellent point." Chew on the graph comparing CO2 and water vapor absorbances and try to do better than semantics, "driving" and "amplifying."
Pure nonsense.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

If Carbon Dioxide Hysteria were as "proven" and "valid" as the zealots swear,

Poisoning the well.

Semantics. Pretension.

You have yet to demonstrate "hysteria" or "zealotry"

there could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have written scientific papers and books

Simple falsehood.

No it is not. Your mendacity is pervasive.


The Jantzen Chronicles Discuss CO2 and the Global Warming Fraud

The more fossil fuel used, the greener and cleaner we are!

What Climate Scientists Say About Global Warming, by Richard Lindzen of M.I.T.

Climate Change Reconsidered II, by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (Policymakers’ summary of this 1,200 page book)

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism​

1970s Global Cooling Alarmism​

Peer Reviewed Articles Skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming
No, 97% of Scientists do NOT Accept Global Warming
240 Scientific Papers by Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Scientist at MIT

Nobody cares what you call it; we care whether you can demonstrate your claims about it.
You refute any claim that does not comport with your fear-mongering.


Water vapour, like biologically captured carbon dioxide, cycles on short timescales. If there's an excess of water vapour in the atmosphere, it rains until there's not.

The average concentration of atmospheric water vapor is 1.5% or 15,000 ppmv.
After rainfall, it does not go to 0 ppmv. You claim scientific knowledge and superiority?
Please.

Seriously, you have demonstrated nothing other than that:



I recommend that you first learn to think logically, then learn how to tell when you are or are not being lied to, and finally that you learn to trust nobody, particularly not yourself.

Your enthusiasm is great, but you are misapplying it to make a clown of yourself.

You have made no claims nor stated any facts other than your own boastful claims of intellectual superiority. I hope this website has an Ignore Function. You will be the first name I put on my list.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[steve_bank]

Having scientific credentials does not infer any kind of authority or truth. There is no 'pope' of science.

In politics, region,, philosophy as well as science on an issue like climate change you can likely find views that support your agenda. that you can toss out. Anyone with a science degree can publish a paper or book and call it science.

There are Christians with valid science credentials who reject evolution and promote biblical creationism. They are a minority view but creationists quote them.

The fact that ocean temperature has been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a strong indicator. Some in the late 19th century were concerned about the effect on climate by air pollution. London had a serious problem wit air polution.

Until auto exhaust limits La visibility was limited even on a clear day.

That global temperatures are risng is an measured fact. All the known natural possibilities have been elminated. Such as solar cycles and orbital variations.


The short term rapid climate change attributed to other than human activity is a minority view.

I expect at some of the minority papers and books published trace finding back to the fossil fuel industry. That is common in industry. Tobacco companies published studies claiming cigarettes did not increase risk of lung disease.

I epect there are fossil fuel interests funding Internet campaigns to debunk climate change. There are undubedly sites where deniers can find things to quoye.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When the scientific consensus, based on demonstratable facts is overwhelmingly united, to just wave that off like that is irresponsible bullshit.

The garbage from climate denialist cranks is on par with flat Earthers.

 

[TSwizzle]

That global temperatures are risng is an measured fact.

An imperceptible rise in temperature does not a crisis make.

It’s baffling that some people think the earth’s climate is stable, static.

It really is an end of times rapture like cult.

It really was catastrophic in Santa Monica today, it rained!! When is Newsom going to do something?!!!

And nobody “denies climate”. It’s a ridiculous thing to say and can’t be taken seriously.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Having scientific credentials does not infer any kind of authority or truth. There is no 'pope' of science.


That global temperatures are risng is an measured fact. All the known natural possibilities have been elminated. Such as solar cycles and orbital variations.

Henrik Svensmark, the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, believes that “World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.”

The global mean temperature has increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. This is a trivial amount considering the passage of 135 years.

1. The claimed long-term increase in global temperatures is simply not happening.​

On February 1st, 2014, NOAA and NASA held a joint press conference in which they released data about 2013’s global surface temperature. They made reference to a “pause” in the temperature that began in 1997. Dr. David Whitehouse, science editor for the BBC, noted that “When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters, Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr. Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun, and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.”​

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​

 

[Shadowy Man]

Anything more recent than ten years ago?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

@bilby & @Loren Pechtel

You each make excellent points. I would like to see someone actually disassemble that misleading graph a bit, because the claim it is misleading has not yet been supported. It has been asserted as misleading.

I know both of you are better than this, but because I have a car to go rent and a wedding to break myself at, I'm not going to get the time to lay into it myself.

I did explain--the graph is misleading because it's only counting CO2 emission without counting the CO2 that plants take up in photosynthesis. That's why I was comparing it to that annoying pump behind us.

 

[bilby]

You do not understand 15,400 ppmv and tell ME I "need to learn what (I'm) arguing about"?
Your haughtiness is misplaced.

I specifically said that water vapor is ~15,000 ppmv, so when added to the paltry CO2 of 400 ppmv, you get.... 15,400 ppmv.

That's nice. Why do you imagine that it is useful, sensible, valuable or informative to add together the volumes of air occupied by different molecules in that way?

Hint: it's not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You do not understand 15,400 ppmv and tell ME I "need to learn what (I'm) arguing about"?
Your haughtiness is misplaced.

I don't understand "ppmv". The reasonable unit for that is ppm--parts per million. Is it perhaps saying parts per million volume? That would not be the normal measure but perhaps it was used by someone who didn't realize that's the normal situation when looking at a gas.

I specifically said that water vapor is ~15,000 ppmv, so when added to the paltry CO2 of 400 ppmv, you get.... 15,400 ppmv.

You pretend that semantics is more important than science. "Driver" versus "amplifier."
Oh please. Stop it. The graph is a fraud. The predictions have been fraudulent but they never end.

Amplifiers increase a signal but they do not create it. Plug a speaker into an amplifier and you get silence. You need something to amplify first.

We distinguish them because the H2O content is simply a function of temperature and the shape of the terrain. The latter is fixed on the timescale we are talking about, so for practical purposes it's only based on the temperature. This means that adding CO2 results also results in some warming from H2O (but also some cooling--clouds are reflective), but the driver is the CO2, not the H2O.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” – Kevin Trenbarth, IPCC lead author on physical science, regarding the pause in measured warming from 1999 t0 2009​

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015​

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

Notably, your editorial references a climate denier site as the source rather than giving the primary source. It should reference where it actually appeared.
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

· Rather than famine, “in the fifty years from 1961 to 2011, global yields of wheat, rice, and maize … each more than doubled,” according to the IPCC.

We bred better crops and got better at fertilizing them. And 1961 to 2011 did not involve changes enough to matter to crop yields, anyway.

· “The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.”

Unsourced.

October 2021

· “The warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years,” Koonin writes, according to the U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report.

Searching for the words "not risen" fails. And your page starts out "Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960". See why we care about sources??

· “Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century,” according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment.

Keyword "detectable". Hurricanes are very noisy data, it would take a big change to be noticeable.