Global Warming HOAX Unravels

a reply to: smurfy

Indeed. And add to that, something I have just found out recently after investigating into the NOAA's weather modification records: the use of weather mod tech so to generate artificial evidences in favour of global warming theory.

Weather mod activities are carried out, change the weather, and then this new weather gets blamed on Global Warming.

This is getting ridiculous.

a reply to: Metallicus

Natural news is your source? Ok... Well let's look at what he is presenting.

Ok so the first half of this article is him talking about how the data is being falsely reported, but then he never tells us where he is getting the data from or links to the real data or even the data he is using. He provides a nice graph, but again no source to where this data came from.

Then the second half of the article is him shilling his podcast.

I like how in winter there seems to be more global warming is a hoax threads and in summer there are more global warming doom threads.

I am not a climate scientist so i cannot say something real about this, as all of you that claims scientist are liars, you really don't know what you are saying. having said this...

I think if you live in the tropic, where this winter/summer bias is not present, and its hot the whole year, you would feel the planet is getting hotter, an example of it is my home country of Venezuela, where 100 years ago there was 7 permanent glaciers and now there is one soon to be gone, its not lack of rain, its just too hot to have ice the whole year, further evidence is the migration of all kind of wild life and vegetation to higher altitudes in the country, species that where only in the savannah now are at higher altitudes due to the increase in temperatures, and espeletia plants can now be found in altitudes that could not survive before, there is local studies about this, you can be sure they are not funded by TPTB or any new world stuff, this real, its happening i have seen this over my life time (not only i am a local in the Andes, my brother is a Biologist that made his thesis mapping vegetation in the area)

Now there is another part to this and is what is causing it, there is an obvious thing in the planet, us humans changed in the last 150 more or less years, we started burning carbon compounds to generate power, emitting gases as a side effect to the atmosphere, not only that, we are several times more millions of what we were back then, consuming more resources and changing the balance of how these gases are reabsorbed from the atmosphere (cow farts, deforestation, unforeseen change in marine ecosystems due to contamination/exploitation of the resources). all of this is a new effect, not present ever before in the planet.

But here is where scientist really have the say (they are the ones trained to make studies and reach conclusions, unlike random people in conspiracy forums), is human activity the cause of global warming? because there are other natural factors that may have a bigger impact in climate, like volcanoes, and the current warming may very well be a natural step on the numerous fluctuations in climate observed over much larger periods of time.

So in my personal opinion, people that say global warming is a hoax, or is something made out to tax more, or promote or hinder some kind of process for economic gains are just dumb, because climate is changing, CO2 and other gases haven been studied and it has been demonstrated how they interact, and we clearly are generating tons of said gases, when never before we were a source of it. Now if someone says, climate change is a reality, but its being abused by some to promote an agenda, that has more merit as may be true or not.

a reply to: Agartha

you are aware that even scientists who support global warming state that man can only be held responsible for about 20 % of the carbon in the atmosphere?

And that the carbon in the atmosphere is also responsible for a 33 % increase in plant life on earth.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gemwolf

Beijing is THE extreme you can use. If the whole world did that it would be an issue, I wouldn't argue that.

The funny thing is Beijing is the extreme, but that used to be L.A., when I was a kid, L.A.'s smog was as bad as Beijings, they used to warn old people not to go outside. The great lakes were like the Chinese waterways, and don't go fishing or swimming in them, because it was banned.

What did we do in the West to fix our polluting problem? We shipped it offshore to China. Unfortunately we are on the same planet. The planet never changed, even if the hemisphere for dumping pollution did.

The Oil companies did their own research into global warming long before anyone else did. They were very close to the tobacco companies in this respect, they saw the writing on the wall and buried it.

We only recently admitted smoking causes cancer. And it appears it will take awhile still before Oil funds will relent and people will finally admit that dumping 37 Billion Metric Tonnes of Co2 every year into the environment, is bad.

Keep in mind, the Oil & Gas industry is responsible for around ~33 billion Tonnes of that.

Who do you think is lying? If you really need to see how this story ends, go find someone with lung cancer, who's doctor recommended they should smoke in the 50's or 60's, if they aren't already dead.

It should also be noted that the same people who buried the "smoking causes cancer" reports were hired by the oil companies to do the same to global warming reports.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Hello shooterbrody....

thank you for the info about Dr David Evans work...very interesting....go Aussie go...

I don't know where you come from....but let me tell you about things in Australia....

The chief commissioner of the climate commission here in Australia is a fellow called Dr Tim Flannery and his qualifications are.....mammalogist and palaeontologist....please check out his wiki page.....

in layman's terms......boobs and bones......
qualifications that are essential in directing a country in regards to climate change.....
apparently we are suppose to take his opinions on the future climate seriously.....
and he loves being on TV....He also gets paid very handsomely by the Australian government to sprout his stuff which is all doom and gloom if we don't follow his advice....
our pollies love this guy.....

a reply to: Indigent

There is no doubt that climate is changing. All throughout Earth history, ever since the start of its existence, climate never stopped changing!

No system is static! It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

But some politicians figured, hey, why let a good climate change go to waste? Let's blame it all on the people and let's tax them to make them feel better!

a reply to: swanne

The global warming being pushed on us by global governments is a science fraud. The satellite data purported to show a warming "trend" over the last hundred years has been fraudulently altered to show a warming trend where none exists.

First sentence in OP quote.

Oh sure it's a hoax that's why there is no snow here anymore and I don't need a coat on December 3. Wake up, or are you being paid by corporate America to allow them to continue to destroy the environment?

originally posted by: pikestaff
I quite often wonder about the global cooling/warming/changing, saga, what with a Canadian coastguard stating that the ice in the Hudson bay is the worst he's seen it in twenty years, so the Hudson bay does not feel the warming then?
Plus all the reports of snow being the worst yet last winter? and some of that snow still not melted at Buffalo, NY in June? Also snow not melted in Scotland, UK, in July? and I don't mean the tops of mountains.
This information via news blogs into my email inbox. Plus, this fine blog.

I'm starting to wonder if this vid might not explain a lot of what we're seeing. It is from October of this year and, if you can get past the title he chose, this guy (among others on YT) may be on to something. In the "Age Of The Tweet", I'm hoping at least a few of you will watch all the way through. Thirty one minutes is a lot more of an investment of time than a simple, "You're making Too D*mned Much CO2!!!" but if he's anywhere near knowing what he'd talking about, we're in for a rough time regardless of what schemes the ruling class comes up with.

I readily admit that I know nothing about using GPS and that I'm only able to grasp about 3/4 of what he's saying but I also noticed that it is NOAA that he's saying has been apparently using modeling for the North Pole instead of anyone actually going there to verify their predictions.

One thing I am familiar with is the ecliptic and for the last few years I've thought something didn't seem quite right in the night sky. If the indigenous peoples of the North are saying that the Sun has changed in the sky, I'd be more inclined to believe them than some stuffed shirt with string of letters behind his name. They've had to pass down from generation to generation how to read the signs to survive in that hostile environment. If the Earth is changing the orientation of the magnetosphere there is NOTHING we can do about it...

originally posted by: Metallicus

The global warming being pushed on us by global governments is a science fraud. The satellite data purported to show a warming "trend" over the last hundred years has been fraudulently altered to show a warming trend where none exists.

What the data really show are an obvious cooling trend over the last hundred years (see below). But because this cooling trend doesn't fit the globalist agenda of enslaving the population under a system of absolute behavioral control, the data had to be altered to fit the government narrative of global warming / climate change.

I used to casually believe the global warming narrative, but when I took a closer look at the data and motivations of those pushing the global warming agenda, it became obvious to me that global warming is a massive scientific hoax being perpetrated for political reasons.

Article

Yes, I realize I will get slammed for posting this article disputing the climate agenda data, but I wanted to take the opportunity to post my view of what climate change is really about and that is control of the population by the elite.

I have always contended that the source data and subsequent conclusions drawn from it was altered or at the very least manipulated to support the globalist NWO agenda. I don't expect that anyone will change their mind on climate change, but with all the threads lately on global warming I wanted to start at least one thread with a counter argument.

People, this is about control and manipulation of us by globalists and nothing more. I realize you think science supports climate change, but it has been manipulated to show what they want you to see.

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. At least ask yourself if you will be ceding your power and individual liberties to a global organization that supersedes political boundaries and sovereign nations. Maybe I see it because my freedom is so important to me or maybe I simply am willing to keep and open mind, but at least consider the possibility that you are being used by TPTB to promote their agenda of control.

Please don't give away your rights and sovereignty out of fear.

Okay, I'm finished...you may now begin bashing me.

Of course the charade is ending. The AGW crowd has made predictions with dates and none of them have come true. Not a single one. Not only that but the opposite has been occurring. More ice, less hurricanes, more snow, little to no rise in temps.

originally posted by: Indigent


First sentence in OP quote.

Why is it so hard to believe? NASA herself explained how they modified historical records so to "correct" for the unreliability of ground thermometers. That's why they switched to satellite measurement.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

a reply to: swanne

I always think the people who harp on and on with the "the climate is always changing" rhetoric are humorous. You guys seem to neglect that CO2 caused the climate to change back then too. Yes it was natural CO2 changes, but CO2 was DEFINITELY a factor regarding the changing climates in the past.

The IPCC Explains... Natural Causes of Ice Ages and Climate Change

Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280 ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.

During the last ice age, over 20 abrupt and dramatic climate shifts occurred that are particularly prominent in records around the northern Atlantic (see Section 6.4). These differ from the glacial-interglacial cycles in that they probably do not involve large changes in global mean temperature: changes are not synchronous in Greenland and Antarctica, and they are in the opposite direction in the South and North Atlantic. This means that a major change in global radiation balance would not have been needed to cause these shifts; a redistribution of heat within the climate system would have sufficed. There is indeed strong evidence that changes in ocean circulation and heat transport can explain many features of these abrupt events; sediment data and model simulations show that some of these changes could have been triggered by instabilities in the ice sheets surrounding the Atlantic at the time, and the associated freshwater release into the ocean.

Much warmer times have also occurred in climate history – during most of the past 500 million years, Earth was probably completely free of ice sheets (geologists can tell from the marks ice leaves on rock), unlike today, when Greenland and Antarctica are ice-covered. Data on greenhouse gas abundances going back beyond a million years, that is, beyond the reach of antarctic ice cores, are still rather uncertain, but analysis of geological samples suggests that the warm ice-free periods coincide with high atmospheric CO2 levels. On million-year time scales, CO2 levels change due to tectonic activity, which affects the rates of CO2 exchange of ocean and atmosphere with the solid Earth. See Section 6.3 for more about these ancient climates.

So if we are dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere (while at the same time deforesting unprecedented amounts of trees) it's GOING to have an impact. I'm sorry but the "the climate has always been changing" excuse, to me, just says that you are just repeating rhetoric and not actually looking at any science to see if you are actually correct.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

you are aware that even scientists who support global warming state that man can only be held responsible for about 20 % of the carbon in the atmosphere?

And that the carbon in the atmosphere is also responsible for a 33 % increase in plant life on earth.

Tired of Control Freaks

Of course I am aware: 30% of CO2 in the atmosphere was put by us.
Are you saying that CO2 does not contribute to the warming?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Of course the charade is ending. The AGW crowd has made predictions with dates and none of them have come true. Not a single one. Not only that but the opposite has been occurring. More ice, less hurricanes, more snow, little to no rise in temps.

Saying this doesn't make it true.

How reliable are climate models?

Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.

Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.

Here's the graph from that link. Notice all that grey underneath the data curve? Those are under reported predictions not over reported ones.

Somebody should do a survey of evolution deniers, climate change deniers and gun fetishists to see how much overlap there is.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps, perhaps. But then, there is one important point which you forget: CO2 and water vapour share infrared band absorption. See, I did look at the science. Turns out that measuring the actual current CO2 level in the atmosphere is not as easy as some would like to believe, leaving alot of variables (and proportional uncertainty) up to the observer's fancy.

The most important aspect of the measurements is the ongoing calibrations. Air flows continually through the instrument, after having first been dried in a cold trap where the water vapor freezes out as ice on the walls. Unfortunately, the absorption that we measure in the cell does not depend on the CO2 mole fraction, but on the total amount of CO2 in the cell. Therefore, we either have to extremely accurately control the temperature and pressure in the cell, as well as the flow rate, or we can control them less accurately while using frequent calibrations of the instrument with reference gas mixtures of CO2-in-dry-air spanning the expected range of the measurements.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

As you already know, I used to be pro-AGW, but then I saw all the variables and realized how much uncertainty there actually is - in almost every branches of the theory - basically allowing any biased observer to simply see what he/she wants to see. So that's why I like to use climate change as an example of how there is no such thing as a "settled science".

Now I must go, my day is starting. Have a good day mate!

a reply to: swanne

Just wait. They'll find a way to tax us for the moon rises and sunsets next.

a reply to: swanne

Well it's a tricky process. Science isn't easy. Are you saying the science is flawed because the science is hard to do or something?

I mean real world measurements are lining up with predictions and models easily. In FACT the variances produced from the margin of error you are pointing out here are causing us to UNDER-predict how the climate is changing. I already showed this in a previous post.

originally posted by: Indigent
-- snip --
Now if someone says, climate change is a reality, but its being abused by some to promote an agenda, that has more merit as may be true or not.

I didn't shorten your post out of disregard for your above the quoted sentence. Excellent post in entirety. The last sentence, though, is profoundly elegant. You've nailed my problem with the whole climate change panic.

My wife has a cousin who is a hard-core birder and the last couple of years she's been logging an increasing amount of "Lifers". (For those unfamiliar with the term, that's a bird that is so rarely seen in your area that people skip work to go get a photo and watch from a respectful distance).

While I might disagree with some scientists who appear to possibly be self-serving, the animals and the people that live close to the land are giving clear signs that something odd, maybe even ominous, is going on.

Heaven help us if the planet is in the process of a shift not seen in 700K years!