Global Warming HOAX Unravels

a reply to: AttitudeProblem

Great information, Mssr Corbett succinctly and intelligently gathers & interprets the words & thoughts of those who can & do prove that man-made climate change is a hoax; a NWO conspiracy of the highest order. Climate change is one of the subjects which invariably causes my skin to crawl when it is covered by the mainstream media - it's just such nonsense, but is so carefully presented that the majority of all generally sensible people buy into it.

While I found the CorbettReport source videos to be an exellent critique of the climate change fallacy - why does he ruin it by his allegiance to the philosophy of anarchism? It's just such a slap in the face to see the excellent reporting, then to explore his site, only to find the 'greats' of anarchist philosophy being touted as having anything at all to do with any kind of solution to the NWO.

ARGH!!!!!!

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

why does he ruin it by his allegiance to the philosophy of anarchism?

If you were to sit down and flush the propaganda out of your mind you would understand that anarchism doe not mean anarchy and therefore nothing to fear . anarchism in a true sense just ,means the community[s] doing what needs to be done and not needing the political structures and types to govern us peoples . We are plenty adept at governing our own families .Imagine if the Govt. is given the fiduciary responsibility for making your own family decisions we can expect that (they) will want to increase that power and use it to their advantage. ant that is what we have seen and are seeing .

a reply to: raymundoko

Using the appeal to authority will not score you many points with those who are coming to grips with logical fallacies . Peer review is a system that can suffer the ills or errors well .Sometimes it is quick and sometimes it takes many years to uncover .A good example of modern climate scientist making erroneous issues in their papers and peer/pal review letting it slip is

"PLUS AN OBVIOUS ERROR IN THE NEW NOAA ERSST.V4 PAPER
Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
We’ve discussed NOAA’s new ERSST.v4 “pauses-buster” sea surface temperature reconstruction in a number of posts this year. They are linked at the end of this post. We can add yet another curiosity to the list…this time relating to the global ERSST.v4 data during the first half of the 20th Century. Additionally, there is an error in a new paper about the NOAA ERSST.v4 that I want to discuss as well. wattsupwiththat.com... y/ Dont expect the authors to show up at the webs largest community on climate to defend their errors .It seldom happens as they usually think that they have settled the science .

a reply to: Metallicus

Well, at least you know you're a raging nut bag... that's half the battle... admitting you have a problem.

I stated a fact in response to a posters claim people here aren't qualified to comment on the issue and that I get my information from blogs. For it to be an appeal to authority I would have had to bring it up to imply I am correct, which I have not done.

You also haven't taken the time I research who your are talking to or what my views are. If you had you'd know you just wasted your breath attempting to lecture.

Great job not knowing how a logical fallacy works though.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

a reply to: Metallicus

Science is gov controlled, so this makes perfect sense logically! Our great scientist of today? Where are they? What have they really discovered? Nothing, because they are put behind a pencil pushing desk working for the gov and get paid well for doing so. They are no longer at home or free in labs working on great discoveries like they use to. Scientist simply do not exist any more. Not in the way they use to.

mettalicus, focusing only on satellite data is cherry picking, I thought that was a main criticism of the science from the "deniers" ?

Can you imagine if the Koch brothers hired a scientist who was a self described climate change skeptic to go in front of congress during carbon tax hearings to testify (under oath) that the global warming science was invalid due to;

1) Bias. they claimed the scientist were trying to make the data support a predetermined conclusion
2) faulty sensors ?

Can you imagine if he eliminated the less reliable sensors from the data and then analyzed millions of RANDOM data sets ?

Can you imagine if a guy hired by oil men to testify in congress under oath after studying the data came to the conclusion that global warming is real AND man made ?

I can

testimony

Berkeley Earth Science Project

If this doesn't make you consider that global warming is potentially happening, and not a political conspiracy, I think you will have to admit you aren't really thinking about the issue, just looking to kill time on the internet

a reply to: syrinx high priest

your skeptic testifies that temperature rose by 0.9 degrees in the last 50 years. That is evidence that the climate warmed in the past 50 years but not the cause of the warming.

What would you think if a climate scientist who used to support the ttheory of anthropognically caused climate change, changed her mind, and testified to Congress that climate change scientists spent almost no time seeking the real source of global warming?

curryja.files.wordpress.com...

Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change: • The hiatus in global warming since 1998 • Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide • Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century

My climatologist from Georgia Tech trumps your physicist.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: syrinx high priest

What are you saying. That a scientist, funded by oil company's, still had the freedom to testify to Congress based solely on his data results?

Are you implying that funding sources don't matter?

Tired of Control Freaks

I haven't posted here in years, forgive me that I don't remember the formatting

tired, Dr. Mullers makes a compelling statement about the only match for the temp data is CO2 data. Nothing else matches it. Until something else becomes a better match, a real scientist accepts the best theory right now is human activity

Tired, my point is simple. The Koch brothers hired a guy to debunk the science and he corroborated it


Dr. Meuller addressed all the tired old arguments about solar variation, bias, and reliablilty of sensors.

It wasn't his data, he examined the "disputed" data the deniers were trying to discredit

when you make a silly statement about one scientist trumping another you just inform me that I need not take your opinion seriously

a reply to: syrinx high priest

And since oil money funded your guy - I need not take your opinion or his seriously.

Do you know the difference between a climatologist and a physicist?

Tired of control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


tired, slow down and read my links, you may learn something. You are totally missing the Koch point

a reply to: syrinx high priest

I read your link - a physicist funded by Koch brothers confirmed that global temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees. Now show me that part that where evidence of the cause is provided???

Now try reading my link from Judith Curry and begin the understand that atmospheric global temperatures are of little importance. Its ocean temperatures that count. Then find the information that ocean currents cause 30 years of global warming and 30 years of global cooling.

Also read about how there has been a global warming hiatus since 1998 which was not predicted by any of the models. Which means the models were wrong.

Tired of Control Freaks

tired, the point about the oil men is they hired a scientist to debunk the climate data and he wound up agreeing with it.

more meuller

“The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.” A Koch-funded reanalysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports finds that “essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.” Via BEST. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) is poised to release its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming. UPDATE (9 pm, 7/28): A NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, has been published, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.” Here is the money graf: CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. Yes, yes, I know, the finding itself is “dog bites man.” What makes this “man bites dog” is that Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000).” The Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world! It gets better: Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In short, a Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC “consensus” underestimated both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions! UPDATE (9 AM, 7/29): The UK Guardian has a good story up, “Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds: Earth’s land shown to have warmed by 1.5C over past 250 years, with humans being almost entirely responsible.” And here’s an amusing tweet from a top U.S. climatologist, Michael Mann: Below is some background on BEST followed by a longer excerpt of the op-ed. A group of scientists led by one well-known skeptic, Muller — and whose only climatologist listed is Judith Curry, a well-known confusionist [see Schmidt and Annan and Steig andVerheggen, and CP] — decided to reexamine all of the temperature data they could get their hands on. I broke the story of their initial findings in March 2011 (with the help of climatologist Ken Caldeira) — see Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.” The top figure is an updated chart of their findings from March of this year. They found a lot of warming. Indeed, their key paper from 2011 found: … our analysis suggests a degree of global land-surface warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions. So the only remaining question for BEST was: What is the cause of that warming? Of course, those who read ClimateProgress or the scientific literature already knew the answer to that question (see the 12/11 post, It’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was). BEST is set to release those findings this week. The excellent UK Guardian reporter, Leo Hickman, tweeted earlier today that “Significant climate-related news will be breaking on Guardian website in next 24-36 hours” and then he tweeted an hour ago the link to the excerpt of Muller’s op-ed. Here is more of the op-ed: How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Well, in fact, to be seriously considered, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does CO2 — and it must offer some mechanism that counteracts the well-known warming effect of CO2. Not bloody likely. The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis. What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years. Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Hope springs eternal. Unless, you’re a denier. Then the expression is “nope springs eternal.” I asked Caldeira for a comment on Muller’s op-ed. He writes: I am glad that Muller et al have taken a look at the data and have come to essentially the same conclusion that nearly everyone else had come to more than a decade ago. The basic scientific results have been established for a long time now, so I do not see the results of Muller et al as being scientifically important. However, their result may be politically important. It shows that even people who suspect climate scientists of being charlatans, Text

edit on 9-4-2016 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-4-2016 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

tired, I have already adressed the satellite data as cherry picking.

are you interested in a conversation or just throwing out talking points ?

tired, none of the data dr mueller examined is atmospheric


I

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Did you read your own link?

"these facts don't prove causality....."

Your link shows a physicist funded by the Koch brothers confirmed that global temperature increased by 0.9 degrees (doesn't it?) the physicist was funded by oil money (wasn't that your point).

But it doesn't prove the cause of the warming is anthropogenic (see that part that says "these facts DON"T PROVE CAUSALITY"

So why exactly do you think I am failing to understand your link?

Are you failing to understand your own link?

Tired of Control Freaks

You'd have to be living under a rock to deny the planet is warming up. It would be a very hot cave, under that rock.

To deny climate change exists at all is to deny many things that are staring you in the face every single day.

The biggest part of global warming for me, isn't that it's not warming up, because it is. For me, it's whether it's a natural phenomenon or if humans have contributed.

There are obvious signs all around us (even for Christians) that the Earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is right now.

Only question for me is if climate change is man made, what caused the end of the last ice age ? And don't you dare say "it was the Hand of God".

Even in the Middle Ages, Northern Europe was much warmer than it is now. And there is lots of proof that it has been much cooler, too.

tired

do you have a better match ? what is your alternative explanantion and does it match better ?

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Well, in fact, to be seriously considered, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does CO2

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Yes I do have a better match!

Read the link I provided for the testimoney of Dr. Judith Curry. Look up the words "Synchonization Theory" . Read all about how the oceans have a 30 year pattern of warming and cooling.

I gave you the link - do your own search!

Tired of Control Freaks