The Global Warming Fraud

[bilby]

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

Poisoning the well.

Semantics. Pretension.

Well, yes, I agree you're guilty of those errors too, but the logical fallacies are adequate to debunk you, so I didn't feel the need to mention it.

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.

Quote mining, already?? That's impressively dumb. And coupled with accusing the mirror!

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

As any person who could read for understanding would have known, I didn't object to the claim that "thousands of scientists [...] scientific papers and books" exist; I acknowledged their existence, and identified as a simple falsehood the claim that "there could not possibility be" such a body of work without its being at least partially true.

There are thousands of such papers regarding Bigfoot, alien abductions, and the validity of Trickle Down economics.

Their existence doesn't constitute a consensus.

Simple falsehood.

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

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.

Yeah, why would it need to?

You are making so many fundamental errors that it's hard to know where to begin.

Rainfall reduces the average concentration of atmospheric water vapour.

Fortunately, it doesn't reduce that value to zero, or we would all die.

You do know that a number can reduce without becoming zero, right?

Right?

You claim scientific knowledge and superiority?
Please.

I don't need to, you are doing a fantastic job of demonstrating it for me.

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 am not the one making claims. You are making claims; I am showing them to be stupid and nonsensical.

I hope this website has an Ignore Function. You will be the first name I put on my list.

Given that you don't know how discussions work, how thinking works, how evidence works, or how science works, I find it unsurprising that you don't know how this website works.

Ignoring people who don't agree with you is an excellent way to stay stupid, and that it's your go-to strategy is really not shocking to me.

 

[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.

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.

If you don't understand the difference between drivers and amplifiers you're not going to understand what we are saying but that doesn't make it false.

 

[Ford]

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?

Looks like it's typing in big, bold letters and sharing old, debunked, boilerplate links so far.

Oh, and memes. Because that's how scientists counter each other's arguments. With memes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

@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.

And if you can’t rock solid proof for the science on an internet bulletin board then how could it possibly not be a fraud?

 

[steve_bank]

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​

The problem for you here on this forum is most or all of us responding to you have enough grounding in science that we do not rely soley on what people say and publish.

Wec an reason it out usning basic science.

We are not limited to quoting others for our understanding and views. We here are generally skeptical by mature and do nor necessarily believe something even if it is science, without understanding the science.

Stark contrast to the absurd who try to debunk climate change by quoting that which they do not understand.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Anything more recent than ten years ago?

Don't you have anything except semantics and giggle games?
Anything I post you and your AlGorians find something to nitpick, however
irrelevant it may be. AlGorians continue to make the same outrageous exaggerations they made forty years ago, much less ten years ago.

Much more recently, your Hero, Barack Obama purchased a waterfront mansion at Martha's Vineyard AFTER proclaiming "the sea is rising"! ! ! ! OMG.

"At some point you've got enough." - The Obamas, with three mansions, in Martha's Vineyard, Chicago, and Hawaii.

You should be so proud of them. They're as divisive as you are and on the same side!
Incidentally, a copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance was found in Unabomber's rathole cabin when he was arrested. Unabomber was Green. Isn't that special.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Anything more recent than ten years ago?

Don't you have anything except semantics and giggle games?
Anything I post you and your AlGorians find something to nitpick, however
irrelevant it may be. AlGorians continue to make the same outrageous exaggerations they made forty years ago, much less ten years ago.

Much more recently, your Hero, Barack Obama purchased a waterfront mansion at Martha's Vineyard AFTER proclaiming "the sea is rising"! ! ! ! OMG.

"At some point you've got enough." - The Obamas, with three mansions, in Martha's Vineyard, Chicago, and Hawaii.

You should be so proud of them. They're as divisive as you are and on the same side!
Incidentally, a copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance was found in Unabomber's rathole cabin when he was arrested. Unabomber was Green. Isn't that special.

Barack Obama is not a climate scientist so I don’t put much weight behind what he says or does about it.

You tried to pull out some decade old quotes about a pause at the time in global temperature rise. (Note the word “pause“ was used.) But time has passed since the en and it would be an interesting point to consider whether that pause has continued. Wouldn’t you want to rely on the state of the art opinions about the subject you claim to know so much about?

It’s an active field on a dynamic system; quoting thoughts from ten or more years ago isn’t the best course of action.

I am not the one here being aggressive, you are? I’m happy to see what actual science you can cite about climate change and its relationship to human activity.

 

[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​

The problem for you here on this forum is most or all of us responding to you have enough grounding in science that we do not rely soley on what people say and publish.

Wec an reason it out usning basic science.

We are not limited to quoting others for our understanding and views. We here are generally skeptical by mature and do nor necessarily believe something even if it is science, without understanding the science.

Stark contrast to the absurd who try to debunk climate change by quoting that which they do not understand.

I have seen nothing from you or anyone else suggesting any of you are more familiar with these points and the science they embody than I am. Nothing.
But in case I am wrong, why don't YOU give me a chemistry lecture on the subject of your choice. See if you can teach me something, please. I'll do likewise, with my take on the insuperable statistics of original polypeptide synthesis, including considerations of chirality and non-peptide bonding. Then I will explain why every science lab in the world calls the most famous chart in science by the wrong name.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Aha! You have brought in support troops. No matter.

Gven the mass of the oceans a 1 dgrre rise is an enrmous increase u=in potential enrgy.

I believe high school science, certainly freshman science.

q = m*c*dT where q is the thermal energy, m is mass, c is the specific heat,and DT is the change in temperature. I am sure you can do the high school algebar and arange the equation in terms of dT, can't you, and calculate the change in ocean energy for a 1 degree change.

Storms and climate are driven by differences in heat. Thunderstorms are a boundary between hot and cold air. Same with ocean storms.,increase the ocean heat and storms get stronger.

Savy vous science?

 

[bilby]

Anything more recent than ten years ago?

Don't you have anything except semantics and giggle games?
Anything I post you and your AlGorians find something to nitpick, however
irrelevant it may be. AlGorians continue to make the same outrageous exaggerations they made forty years ago, much less ten years ago.

Much more recently, your Hero, Barack Obama purchased a waterfront mansion at Martha's Vineyard AFTER proclaiming "the sea is rising"! ! ! ! OMG.

"At some point you've got enough." - The Obamas, with three mansions, in Martha's Vineyard, Chicago, and Hawaii.

You should be so proud of them. They're as divisive as you are and on the same side!
Incidentally, a copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance was found in Unabomber's rathole cabin when he was arrested. Unabomber was Green. Isn't that special.

You appear to be making a lot of unfounded assumptions here.

You are the first person in this thread to mention Al Gore, Barack Obama, or the Unabomber; Yet you appear to hold the delusion that these people are somehow important to your opponents in this debate.

Why would I give shit the first what three foreigners, two of them politicians and one a terrorist, think about a scientific question?

If any or all of them are persuaded by the facts to reach sensible conclusions, that's nice; But not of any real importance.

You can't make sane conclusions about reality, by a study of which non-experts support which positions. Reality isn't a democracy, nor is it an aristocracy.

 

[Ford]

I have seen nothing from you or anyone else suggesting any of you are more familiar with these points and the science they embody than I am. Nothing.

Wow.

Folks, we should get together with the administrators and mods, and have a serious talk about shutting down this forum for good. I mean, we've been unfortunate enough to have the most educated, competent scientist in the entire world grace us with his presence and superior knowledge.

If we don't shut the place down, we should at least bow to the god-like intellect of our newest member, and simply wait for him to issue proclamations from on high.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Jantzen Chronicles Discuss CO2 and the Global Warming Fraud

I see you're going to try to flood us with links without explanation, and you haven't even checked if your links are valid.

Let's consider this first piece of garbage. It's going on and on about showing that CO2 is a small portion of the atmosphere. That's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Would you be ok with breathing air that was 0.038% VX? After all, it's "not very much". They also bring up the standard distraction of higher CO2 levels way back in Earth's past. They neglect to mention that the sun wasn't as bright back then. As the eons have passed the sun burns hydrogen to helium, this ash (from the standpoint of a main sequence star it's ash) builds up, slowing the reaction, the core compresses a bit and the temperature rises. This causes Earth's temperature to rise which increases the rate at which CO2 gets turned into limestone--the end result being Earth's temperature stays basically stable and the CO2 level in the atmosphere goes down. (This cycle is far too slow to matter on a human timescale. It also means that once the atmospheric CO2 drops low enough it can't compensate--nature has us scheduled for warming starting about 50 million years from now. It will be slow but over the next billion years it will come pretty close to sterilizing the planet.)
https://jantzenchronicles.com/2018/08/13/climate-change-chapter-6/

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

Link doesn't work--redirects to the main page.

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

Video by a known denier. I'm not wasting my time.

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

404.

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

I'm not looking though a pile like that.

1970s Global Cooling Alarmism​

The climate was cooling due to all the shit we were sending up smokestacks.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

Peer Reviewed Articles Skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming

Another pile I'm not going to look through.

No, 97% of Scientists do NOT Accept Global Warming

Another video.

240 Scientific Papers by Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Scientist at MIT

He's produced a lot of crap over the years.

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?

You missed the point. The H2O capacity of the atmosphere is a function of temperature. It's impossible to put more in the air on a sustained basis. It's very relevant to calculating the effects but it is not a primary cause.

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.

So you don't want to actually address the arguments? While the ignore function will let you not see his replies everyone else will simply see that you didn't address his arguments. Covering your eyes doesn't make the issue go away. (And you'll find the ignore button doesn't work on me, also.)

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

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.

Aha! You have brought in support troops. No matter.

Gven the mass of the oceans a 1 dgrre rise is an enrmous increase u=in potential enrgy.

I believe high school science, certainly freshman science.

q = m*c*dT where q is the thermal energy, m is mass, c is the specific heat,and DT is the change in temperature. I am sure you can do the high school algebar and arange the equation in terms of dT, can't you, and calculate the change in ocean energy for a 1 degree change.

Storms and climate are driven by differences in heat. Thunderstorms are a boundary between hot and cold air. Same with ocean storms., increase the ocean heat and storms get stronger.

Savy vous science?

En Francais, on dit "Savez vous," pas "Savy vous."

Comment dit-on personne qui parle deux langues? (Bilangue)
Maintenant comment dit-on personne qui parle une langue? (Americain)
(Science la meme chose.)

 

[TSwizzle]

Storms and climate are driven by differences in heat. Thunderstorms are a boundary between hot and cold air. Same with ocean storms.,increase the ocean heat and storms get stronger.

We call this weather fella.

An end of times, rapture like cult.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

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?

You missed the point. The H2O capacity of the atmosphere is a function of temperature. It's impossible to put more in the air on a sustained basis. It's very relevant to calculating the effects but it is not a primary cause.

No, YOU miss the point, intentionally. 1.3 ppmv increase on a basis of 15,400 ppmv is insignificant, particularly when only 3% of that trivial amount is anthropogenic. Refusing to look at evidence does not help your understanding or argument. Moreover, carbon dioxide LAGS temperature by hundreds of years, as explained by climate scientist in his book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years

Finally you said, "Covering your eyes doesn't make the issue go away. (And you'll find the ignore button doesn't work on me, also.)"

1. You covered your eyes in one thing after another, but "the issue" won't go away when you cover your Moderator eyes.
2. Watch me ignore you from here on, "Moderator".

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Storms and climate are driven by differences in heat. Thunderstorms are a boundary between hot and cold air. Same with ocean storms.,increase the ocean heat and storms get stronger.

We call this weather fella.

An end of times, rapture like cult.

TSwizz, you could make enemies here siding with me and against your tidal wave of atheist experts....
Hats off to you, sir!
"Heavier than air human flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895

That's "science" ! ! ! Tell them, Wright Brothers.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

Folks, we should get together with the administrators and mods, and have a serious talk about shutting down this forum for good. I mean, we've been unfortunate enough to have the most educated, competent scientist in the entire world grace us with his presence and superior knowledge.

Your words, not mine. You gang up on a new member like an angry pack of wild dogs, and when he stands up to your bullying, you snivel. I've been maliciously attacked as ignorant, and I am anything but. Your ignorance does show, however and I'm calling you on it

You atheists never shut up. You shut non-atheists up with your relentless ridiculing, pretentiousness, and claims of intellectual superiority. I threw it back at one of you with a challenge. Obviously I touched a nerve. About time someone did.

 

[steve_bank]

Storms and climate are driven by differences in heat. Thunderstorms are a boundary between hot and cold air. Same with ocean storms.,increase the ocean heat and storms get stronger.

We call this weather fella.

An end of times, rapture like cult.

TSwizz, you could make enemies here siding with me and against your tidal wave of atheist experts....
Hats off to you, sir!
"Heavier than air human flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895

That's "science" ! ! ! Tell them, Wright Brothers.

Hardly enemies.With malice towards none.

More like I feel sorry for those who do not understand science and are relegated to quoting things they do not understand.

Having been emerged in applied science for most of my adult life working with people who know science it is hard for me to grasp what it is like to live in our technological scientific world and not understanding how any of it works. It must be a helpless feeling, being at the mercy of those who understand it.

 

[steve_bank]

Storms and climate are driven by differences in heat. Thunderstorms are a boundary between hot and cold air. Same with ocean storms.,increase the ocean heat and storms get stronger.

We call this weather fella.

An end of times, rapture like cult.

Awk Awk Rapture Awk Awk cult

To be technical weather is local, climate is global. Even with global warming local weather may stay cool or even get cooler. Thermodynamics.

Even with a small increase in ocean temperture when a cold front enters warmer air rises fast increasing storm intensity.


If global warming is a hox why a is polar ice merlting increasing sea levels causing islands and coastal cities having to to deal with risng sea levels? Or is Miami moving roads back from the shore a hoax? Or NYC figuring out hpw tp seal subwaY TUNEELS DURING STORMS?

You sond enraptured with your posts. I bet it gets your adrenaline going, it gives you a purpose in an uneventful life?

 

[Ford]

Folks, we should get together with the administrators and mods, and have a serious talk about shutting down this forum for good. I mean, we've been unfortunate enough to have the most educated, competent scientist in the entire world grace us with his presence and superior knowledge.

Your words, not mine. You gang up on a new member like an angry pack of wild dogs, and when he stands up to your bullying, you snivel. I've been maliciously attacked as ignorant, and I am anything but. Your ignorance does show, however and I'm calling you on it

You atheists never shut up. You shut non-atheists up with your relentless ridiculing, pretentiousness, and claims of intellectual superiority. I threw it back at one of you with a challenge. Obviously I touched a nerve. About time someone did.

Oh noes. You're calling me out. How shall I ever recover?