Discussion:
Federal Climate Report Predicts At Least 3 Degrees Of Warming By 2100
Add Reply
Unum
2018-11-24 01:37:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ― which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ―
on Black Friday, a popular shopping holiday the day after the Thanksgiving
holiday, indicates it wanted fewer people to see the news about the findings.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-assessment_us_5bf5b31fe4b0771fb6b57ccb

The United States already warmed on average 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the
past century and will warm at least 3 more degrees by 2100 unless fossil fuel
use is dramatically curtailed, scientists from more than a dozen federal
agencies concluded in their latest in-depth assessment.

The 13-agency consensus, authored by more than 300 researchers, found in the
second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment makes it clear the
world is barreling toward catastrophic ― perhaps irreversible ― climate
change. The report concluded that warming “could increase by 9°F (5°C) or more
by the end of this century” without significant emissions reductions.

“Observations of global average temperature provide clear and compelling
evidence the global average temperature is much higher and is rising more
rapidly than anything modern civilization has experienced,” said David
Easterling, chief of the scientific services division at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville,
North Carolina. “This warming trend can only be explained by human activities,
especially emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
AlleyCat
2018-11-24 05:55:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Global Warming: Follow the Money
By Henry Payne

It isn't the fossil-fuel companies that are polluting climate science.

Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace,
a group of media outlets - including the New York Times and the Boston
Globe - have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for
allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from "fossil fuel
companies." The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens
and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they
share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on
the facts of global-warming funding.

In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from
the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy
industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation
monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory
agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the
government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific
integrity.

Officials with the Smithsonian Institution - which employs Dr. Soon - told
the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and
they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is
a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his
defense.

"It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal
integrity," says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and
International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon
over research funding.

Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more
difficult for some of the top climate scientists - Soon, Roger Pielke Jr.,
the CATO Institute's Patrick Michaels, MIT's now-retired Richard Lindzen -
to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-
warming fear-mongering favored by the government-funded climate
establishment.

"Soon's integrity in the scientific community shines out," says Ebell. "He
has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he
had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could've been named to head
a big university [research center] like Michael Mann."

Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State's Earth System
Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in
which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew
scientific evidence and blackball experts who don't agree with them.

Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from
government agencies. The federal government - which will gain
unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed - has
funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989,
according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that
dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have
historically funded both sides of the debate.

Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government
grants - according to a study by The American Spectator - including
$500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for
his Climategate e-mails.

Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets
such as the Times have ignored the government's over-sized role in
directing research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from
left-wing foundations - contributions that, like government grants, seek
to tip the scales to one side of the debate.

Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works gave details on a "Billionaire's Club" - a
shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to
advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation
and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as
the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA
who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is
incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.

Media outlets have also discriminated in their reporting on Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests. The Times trumpeted Greenpeace FOIA
requests revealing Soon's benefactors, yet it has ignored the government's
refusal of FOIA filings requesting transparency in pro-warming
scientists' funding.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, has submitted FOIA
requests asking for the sources of outside income of NASA scientist James
Hansen (a key ally of Al Gore). The government has stonewalled, according
to Ebell.

Media reporting further misleads readers in suggesting that "fossil fuel"
utilities such as the Southern Company (a $409,000 contributor to Soon's
research, according to the Times) seek only to undermine climate science.
In truth, energy companies today invest in solar, biomass, and landfill
facilities in addition to carbon fuels. Companies such as Duke Energy,
Exelon Corporation, NRG Energy, and Shell have even gone so far as to join
with green groups in forming the U.S. Climate Action Partnership - an
industry/green coalition that wants to "enact strong national legislation
to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."

This alliance worries a scientific community that is hardly unanimous that
warming is a threat. Continued funding of contrarians such as Soon and
Lindzen is essential to getting the best scientific research at a time
when the EPA wants to shut down America's most affordable power source,
coal - at enormous cost to consumers.

The lack of warming for over a decade (witness this winter's dangerous,
record-breaking low temperatures) and Climategate are proof that the
establishment has oversold a warming crisis. Attempts by the media to shut
up their critics ignore the real threat to science.
--
Climate Hillbilly Davis

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."


UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/

*****

"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/

*****

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/

*****

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

*****

United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
David Hartung
2018-11-24 12:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Global Warming: Follow the Money
By Henry Payne
It isn't the fossil-fuel companies that are polluting climate science.
Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace,
a group of media outlets - including the New York Times and the Boston
Globe - have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for
allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from "fossil fuel
companies." The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens
and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.
But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they
share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on
the facts of global-warming funding.
In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from
the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy
industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation
monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory
agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the
government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific
integrity.
Officials with the Smithsonian Institution - which employs Dr. Soon - told
the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and
they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is
a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his
defense.
"It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal
integrity," says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and
International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon
over research funding.
Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more
difficult for some of the top climate scientists - Soon, Roger Pielke Jr.,
the CATO Institute's Patrick Michaels, MIT's now-retired Richard Lindzen -
to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-
warming fear-mongering favored by the government-funded climate
establishment.
"Soon's integrity in the scientific community shines out," says Ebell. "He
has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he
had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could've been named to head
a big university [research center] like Michael Mann."
Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State's Earth System
Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in
which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew
scientific evidence and blackball experts who don't agree with them.
Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from
government agencies. The federal government - which will gain
unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed - has
funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989,
according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that
dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have
historically funded both sides of the debate.
Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government
grants - according to a study by The American Spectator - including
$500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for
his Climategate e-mails.
Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets
such as the Times have ignored the government's over-sized role in
directing research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from
left-wing foundations - contributions that, like government grants, seek
to tip the scales to one side of the debate.
Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works gave details on a "Billionaire's Club" - a
shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to
advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation
and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as
the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA
who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is
incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.
Media outlets have also discriminated in their reporting on Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests. The Times trumpeted Greenpeace FOIA
requests revealing Soon's benefactors, yet it has ignored the government's
refusal of FOIA filings requesting transparency in pro-warming
scientists' funding.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, has submitted FOIA
requests asking for the sources of outside income of NASA scientist James
Hansen (a key ally of Al Gore). The government has stonewalled, according
to Ebell.
Media reporting further misleads readers in suggesting that "fossil fuel"
utilities such as the Southern Company (a $409,000 contributor to Soon's
research, according to the Times) seek only to undermine climate science.
In truth, energy companies today invest in solar, biomass, and landfill
facilities in addition to carbon fuels. Companies such as Duke Energy,
Exelon Corporation, NRG Energy, and Shell have even gone so far as to join
with green groups in forming the U.S. Climate Action Partnership - an
industry/green coalition that wants to "enact strong national legislation
to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."
This alliance worries a scientific community that is hardly unanimous that
warming is a threat. Continued funding of contrarians such as Soon and
Lindzen is essential to getting the best scientific research at a time
when the EPA wants to shut down America's most affordable power source,
coal - at enormous cost to consumers.
The lack of warming for over a decade (witness this winter's dangerous,
record-breaking low temperatures) and Climategate are proof that the
establishment has oversold a warming crisis. Attempts by the media to shut
up their critics ignore the real threat to science.
A good article, thnk you for posting it.

The reality is that we do not know enough about the many facets of
"climate", to have a firm understanding of what causes change.
David Hartung
2018-11-24 12:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600,  Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Global Warming: Follow the Money
By Henry Payne
It isn't the fossil-fuel companies that are polluting climate science.
Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace,
a group of media outlets - including the New York Times and the Boston
Globe - have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for
allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from "fossil fuel
companies." The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens
and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.
But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they
share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on
the facts of global-warming funding.
In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from
the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy
industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the
government/foundation
monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory
agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the
government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific
integrity.
Officials with the Smithsonian Institution - which employs Dr. Soon - told
the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and
they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian
immigrant, is
a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his
defense.
"It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal
integrity," says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and
International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon
over research funding.
Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more
difficult for some of the top climate scientists - Soon, Roger Pielke Jr.,
the CATO Institute's Patrick Michaels, MIT's now-retired Richard Lindzen -
to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-
warming fear-mongering favored by the government-funded climate
establishment.
"Soon's integrity in the scientific community shines out," says Ebell. "He
has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he
had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could've been named to head
a big university [research center] like Michael Mann."
Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State's Earth System
Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in
which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew
scientific evidence and blackball experts who don't agree with them.
Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from
government agencies. The federal government - which will gain
unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed - has
funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989,
according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that
dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have
historically funded both sides of the debate.
Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government
grants - according to a study by The American Spectator - including
$500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for
his Climategate e-mails.
Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets
such as the Times have ignored the government's over-sized role in
directing research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from
left-wing foundations - contributions that, like government grants, seek
to tip the scales to one side of the debate.
Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works gave details on a "Billionaire's Club" - a
shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to
advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation
and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as
the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA
who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is
incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.
Media outlets have also discriminated in their reporting on Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests. The Times trumpeted Greenpeace FOIA
requests revealing Soon's benefactors, yet it has ignored the
government's
refusal of FOIA filings requesting transparency in pro-warming
scientists' funding.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, has submitted FOIA
requests asking for the sources of outside income of NASA scientist James
Hansen (a key ally of Al Gore). The government has stonewalled, according
to Ebell.
Media reporting further misleads readers in suggesting that "fossil fuel"
utilities such as the Southern Company (a $409,000 contributor to Soon's
research, according to the Times) seek only to undermine climate science.
In truth, energy companies today invest in solar, biomass, and landfill
facilities in addition to carbon fuels. Companies such as Duke Energy,
Exelon Corporation, NRG Energy, and Shell have even gone so far as to join
with green groups in forming the U.S. Climate Action Partnership - an
industry/green coalition that wants to "enact strong national legislation
to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."
This alliance worries a scientific community that is hardly unanimous that
warming is a threat. Continued funding of contrarians such as Soon and
Lindzen is essential to getting the best scientific research at a time
when the EPA wants to shut down America's most affordable power source,
coal - at enormous cost to consumers.
The lack of warming for over a decade (witness this winter's dangerous,
record-breaking low temperatures) and Climategate are proof that the
establishment has oversold a warming crisis. Attempts by the media to shut
up their critics ignore the real threat to science.
A good article, thnk you for posting it.
The reality is that we do not know enough about the many facets of
"climate", to have a firm understanding of what causes change.
Instead of responding to the subject of the thread, Tom puke more
propaganda. Typical.
AlleyCat
2018-11-24 23:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 05:04:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Sr. says...
Post by David Hartung
Instead of responding to the subject of the thread, Tom puke more
propaganda. Typical.
Obviously once again David Hartung does NOT recognize the difference between junk science propaganda -- and Real Science.
Tell us soy boy... why is it that every website YOU post is science and
what everyone else posts is junk?

Because you say so?

Tom's list of "sciency" websites he relies on to "prove" that man is
responsible for the gargantuan 1°C rise in temperature over the last 140
years:

https://www.washingtonpost.com
https://www.nytimes.com
https://qz.com
http://www.voanews.com
http://www.theguardian.com

=====

https://www.skepticalscience.com

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Run by John Cook, a cartoonist... one of the koOks who think that 97% of
all scientists believe man is responsible for warming... or at least TRIED
to get everyone to believe it.

"John Cook is most known for the paper he co-authored in 2013 claiming the
97% consensus in the field of climate science that man is the cause for
the majority of the Earth's warming over the last century.

On further investigation into his methodologies it was discovered that he
and several of his co-conspirators through out a large portion of the data
and classified papers as agreeing with the consensus when they contained
no such language. Out of the over 11,000 papers his team investigated only
around 50 actually fully endorsed the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic
Warming. Around 0.3%."

=====

... and the piece de resistance?

http://www.theatlantic.com

Ole Tom butt-fucker thinks that if ANYONE puts ANYTHING "man-made" climate
related on their website... it's TRUE. He wants us to think that evolution
can take place over 140 years and ONE degree temperature rise. LOL

Eh... nope.

=====

"Lasting Evolutionary Change Takes About One Million Years"

https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2011/aug/lasting-evolutionary-
change-takes-about-one-million-years

"Bumble Bees' tongues are getting shorter"... when was the last time YOU
French kissed a Bumble Bee, man-kisser?

You gonna take someone else's word for it?

"They then compared these lengths to those of specimens collected from
the same mountains between 1966 and 1980."

59 fucking years????? FIFTY-NINE FUCKING YEARS??

Why didn't the bee's tongues get shorter during the Holocene Maximum which
lasted THREE THOUSAND YEARS?

Bees' tongues weren't getting shorter, you dumb ass cock-wrangler...
DIFFERENT bees were coming into places were longer-tongued bees had been
before.
Cause and effect.
No... opportunistic "science" bloggers taking advantage of the "timing" of
what they lie about... Global Warming.

You fucking asshole koOks on the left, take EVERYTHING that changes in
NATURE and link it to Global warming, as if changes NEVER happened before
man came along.

You are a fucking moron... allowing yourself to be brainwashed by ANY
swinging dick to come down your pipe. Because someone SAYS something has
been caused by Global Warming, you automatically BELIEVE them?

That's so fucking sad.

Do you REALLY think that Bees' tongues have actually gotten shorter
because it was a few degrees warmer in equatorial New Guinea a few days
out of the year?

It's NOT warmer EVERYWHERE, you asshole licking father fucker.

NOTHING has changed in Bees because some stupid money-hungry
blogger tries to link everything that is happening to Global Warming.

You Homocrats are so into evolution... maybe that's what this is? Ever
think of that, Fagocrat?

(edit: turns out, it IS evolution... oh, and DIFFERENT bees)

Of course not... that doesn't fit your agenda... you wanting power shifted
away from big oil and coal.

Are you STILL too chicken shit to tell us why, chicken shit?
SCIENCE.
No... desperation.
--
Climate Hillbilly Davis
AlleyCat
2018-11-25 00:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 08:12:46 -0800 (PST), Tom Sr. says...
"Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, a leading international expert in weather and
climate
Says WHO?

People IN the weather and climate "industry"?

LOL... how original.

What about Dr. Ian Clark?

Dr. Ian Clark, Phd - paleo-climatologist, hydro-geologist, professor,
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

He says you're all full of shit.

But he's a liar and a shill, right?

Why?

Because he disagrees with you.

So, the Univ. of Ottawa thinks highly enough of this "denierrrr" to keep
him on, but he's a koOk, and you're not.

Gotcha. ;-|
Rudy Canoza
2018-11-24 18:20:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Hartung
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600,  Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Global Warming: Follow the Money
By Henry Payne
It isn't the fossil-fuel companies that are polluting climate science.
Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace,
a group of media outlets - including the New York Times and the Boston
Globe - have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for
allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from "fossil fuel
companies." The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens
and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.
But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they
share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on
the facts of global-warming funding.
In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from
the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy
industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the
government/foundation
monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory
agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the
government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific
integrity.
Officials with the Smithsonian Institution - which employs Dr. Soon - told
the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and
they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian
immigrant, is
a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his
defense.
"It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal
integrity," says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and
International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon
over research funding.
Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more
difficult for some of the top climate scientists - Soon, Roger Pielke Jr.,
the CATO Institute's Patrick Michaels, MIT's now-retired Richard Lindzen -
to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-
warming fear-mongering favored by the government-funded climate
establishment.
"Soon's integrity in the scientific community shines out," says Ebell. "He
has foregone his own career advancement to advance scientific truth. If he
had only mouthed establishment platitudes, he could've been named to head
a big university [research center] like Michael Mann."
Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State's Earth System
Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in
which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew
scientific evidence and blackball experts who don't agree with them.
Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from
government agencies. The federal government - which will gain
unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed - has
funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989,
according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that
dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have
historically funded both sides of the debate.
Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government
grants - according to a study by The American Spectator - including
$500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for
his Climategate e-mails.
Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets
such as the Times have ignored the government's over-sized role in
directing research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from
left-wing foundations - contributions that, like government grants, seek
to tip the scales to one side of the debate.
Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works gave details on a "Billionaire's Club" - a
shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to
advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation
and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as
the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA
who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is
incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.
Media outlets have also discriminated in their reporting on Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests. The Times trumpeted Greenpeace FOIA
requests revealing Soon's benefactors, yet it has ignored the
government's
refusal of FOIA filings requesting transparency in pro-warming
scientists' funding.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, has submitted FOIA
requests asking for the sources of outside income of NASA scientist James
Hansen (a key ally of Al Gore). The government has stonewalled, according
to Ebell.
Media reporting further misleads readers in suggesting that "fossil fuel"
utilities such as the Southern Company (a $409,000 contributor to Soon's
research, according to the Times) seek only to undermine climate science.
In truth, energy companies today invest in solar, biomass, and landfill
facilities in addition to carbon fuels. Companies such as Duke Energy,
Exelon Corporation, NRG Energy, and Shell have even gone so far as to join
with green groups in forming the U.S. Climate Action Partnership - an
industry/green coalition that wants to "enact strong national legislation
to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."
This alliance worries a scientific community that is hardly unanimous that
warming is a threat. Continued funding of contrarians such as Soon and
Lindzen is essential to getting the best scientific research at a time
when the EPA wants to shut down America's most affordable power source,
coal - at enormous cost to consumers.
The lack of warming for over a decade (witness this winter's dangerous,
record-breaking low temperatures) and Climategate are proof that the
establishment has oversold a warming crisis. Attempts by the media to shut
up their critics ignore the real threat to science.
A good article,
It is bullshit, like everything she posts.
Unum
2018-11-24 18:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The reality is that we do not know enough about the many facets of "climate",
to have a firm understanding of what causes change.
https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2012/10/climate-trolls-an-illustrated-bestiary

The Uncertainty Monster monster - The ways of the world are deep and
mysterious. Do not be too eager to deal out taxes in judgement, for even the
very wise cannot see all ends. Let's just wait and watch a few more decades.

Favorite blog: Climate Etc.
Special attack: We must not take any actions until we are 100% certain it is
too late.
Favorite Topic: IPCC definitions of "likely" and "very likely"
Best counter: Uncertainty is actually not your friend in risk assessments
(duh!)
Bob F
2018-11-24 18:44:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by David Hartung
The reality is that we do not know enough about the many facets of
"climate", to have a firm understanding of what causes change.
https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2012/10/climate-trolls-an-illustrated-bestiary
The Uncertainty Monster monster - The ways of the world are deep and
mysterious.  Do not be too eager to deal out taxes in judgement, for
even the
very wise cannot see all ends.  Let's just wait and watch a few more
decades.
Favorite blog:    Climate Etc.
Special attack:  We must not take any actions until we are 100% certain
it is too late.
Favorite Topic: IPCC definitions of "likely" and "very likely"
Best counter:    Uncertainty is actually not your friend in risk
assessments (duh!)
Better safe than sorry. The longer we wait to do something, the worse
the damage.
Byker
2018-11-24 19:05:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Let's just wait and watch a few more decades.
Three degrees? Just move 200 miles farther north...
Bob F
2018-11-24 19:10:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by Unum
Let's just wait and watch a few more decades.
Three degrees? Just move 200 miles farther north...
Obviously, you don't understand what it really means. But OK, tell the
Mexicans your solution.
Byker
2018-11-24 19:16:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by Byker
Post by Unum
Let's just wait and watch a few more decades.
Three degrees? Just move 200 miles farther north...
Obviously, you don't understand what it really means. But OK, tell the
Mexicans your solution.
It ought to be music to the ears of Canucks:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-economy-1.3282446

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mbanm4/how-climate-change-could-turn-canada-into-a-global-superpower

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heatwave-canada-farming/in-canada-climate-change-could-open-new-farmland-to-the-plow-idUSKCN1BZ075
Bob F
2018-11-24 22:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by Bob F
Post by Byker
Post by Unum
Let's just wait and watch a few more decades.
Three degrees? Just move 200 miles farther north...
Obviously, you don't understand what it really means. But OK, tell the
Mexicans your solution.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-economy-1.3282446
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/mbanm4/how-climate-change-could-turn-canada-into-a-global-superpower
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heatwave-canada-farming/in-canada-climate-change-could-open-new-farmland-to-the-plow-idUSKCN1BZ075
Well, at least you acknowledge that warming is a real thing.
Byker
2018-11-24 23:09:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Well, at least you acknowledge that warming is a real thing.
It's been going on for eons and Homo Sapiens has become quite adept at
dealing with it...
Bob F
2018-11-24 23:16:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by Bob F
Well, at least you acknowledge that warming is a real thing.
It's been going on for eons and Homo Sapiens has become quite adept at
dealing with it...
May your Repub masters forever reap the political rewards of being wrong
on this issue. Kind of like they did recently for trying to kill health
care, and huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich.
Byker
2018-11-25 00:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by Byker
Post by Bob F
Well, at least you acknowledge that warming is a real thing.
It's been going on for eons and Homo Sapiens has become quite adept at
dealing with it...
May your Repub masters forever reap the political rewards of being wrong
on this issue. Kind of like they did recently for trying to kill health
care, and huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich.
We'll do our share just as soon as the Chinese get their shit together...
Byker
2018-11-24 19:28:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Obviously, you don't understand what it really means. But OK, tell the
Mexicans your solution.
Tell the Africoonians your solution:

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/animation-world-population-2100-region/

I doubt Africa will reach anywhere near 50% of the World's population
without nature taking its course. Ebola will see to that...
Unum
2018-11-24 19:22:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by Unum
Let's just wait and watch a few more decades.
Three degrees? Just move 200 miles farther north...
Global warming is global, and it is more pronounced at higher latitudes.

"the country’s sole Arctic state, Alaska, is seeing a staggering rate of
warming that has upended its ecosystems, from once ice-clogged coastlines to
increasingly thawing permafrost tundras."
a322x1n
2018-11-24 21:19:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Byker
Post by Unum
Let's just wait and watch a few more decades.
Three degrees? Just move 200 miles farther north...
Global warming is global, and it is more pronounced at higher
latitudes.
"The country’s sole Arctic state, Alaska, is seeing a staggering
rate of warming that has upended its ecosystems, from once ice-clogged
coastlines to increasingly thawing permafrost tundras."
What did you expect when you voted Republican?
AlleyCat
2018-11-25 00:37:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:22:29 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Global warming is global
Uh, no... it's not.

Global warming is taking the AVERAGE of many points on Earth.

With some places being warmer, THIS drives the AVERAGE up.

There are MANY places on Earth that are COLDER than normal, THAT'S why
global temp AVERAGE hasn't gone up any more than it has.

One measly degree of warming over the period of 140 years is NOT
unprecedented, and what if it was?

WHO said the Earth is to NEVER warm up a certain amount? YOU?

Mars and Venus are getting warmer. WHO do you blame for that?

Such arrogant little ass fuckers. You think that because man is here now,
the Earth is suppose to "cooperate" and NEVER get warmer or colder?

That's bullshit, and you KNOW it. WHY did the River Thames freeze up
during the "Little Ice Age"? As far as anyone knew back then, that had
never happened before. WHO did they blame for that?

Yes, it WAS colder in Europe than other places on Earth during the LIA,
JUST like it's warmer in places now... NOT everywhere.

=====

Per Paul Aubrin:

According to recorded data, a lot of countries or regions have not warmed
in recent times.

Places that didn't warm since 1870:
Greenland - no warming
New Zealand - no warming
Antarctica - no warming
North Atlantic - no warming
Western Pacific - no warming
India/Western Himalaya - no warming
Pakistan - no warming
Turkey - no warming
Himalayas/Nepal - no warming
Siberia - no warming
Portugal - no warming
NE China - no warming
SW China - no warming
South China - no warming
West China - no warming
Southern South America - no warming
Canada (B.C.) - no warming
Canada Central - no warming

Places that didn't warm since 1940-1950:
Northern Hemisphere - no warming
Arctic Region - no warming
Greenland - no warming
South Iceland - no warming
North Iceland - no warming
Alaska - no warming
New York - no warming
Rural U.S. - no warming
Northern Europe - no warming
Western Europe - no warming
Mediterranean Region - no warming
Finland and Sweden - no warming
East Antarctica - no warming
North Atlantic - no warming
Western North Atlantic - no warming
Brazil - no warming
SE Australia - no warming
Southern South America - no warming
Andes Mountains - no warming
Chile - no warming

=====

Global Warming, is NOT "global", you lying little basement troll.
--
Climate Hillbilly Davis
Unum
2018-11-25 05:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:22:29 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Global warming is global
Uh, no... it's not.
Global warming is taking the AVERAGE of many points on Earth.
With some places being warmer, THIS drives the AVERAGE up.
OMFG this is so hilarious!
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-25 05:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:22:29 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Global warming is global
Uh, no... it's not.
Global warming is taking the AVERAGE of many points on Earth.
With some places being warmer, THIS drives the AVERAGE up.
OMFG this is so hilarious!
So painful watching hillbillies strain to think. Please take it away!
--
Saccharin, also known as Sweet 'n Low or Sugar Twin, has been around
longer than the other artificial sweeteners, since 1878. It's an
organic molecule made from petroleum and is 300 times sweeter than sugar.
In the 1970s, saccharin fell from favor when studies linked its use to
the development of bladder tumors in male rats. However, later studies
showed that the tumors' formation was dependent on the way rats
metabolized saccharin, which differs from the way humans do. Warning
labels on saccharin products were removed in 2000.
The FDA lists the ADI for saccharin at 5 milligrams per kilogram, or
the equivalent of 9 to 12 packets of the sweetener.
AlleyCat
2018-11-25 23:16:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 23:14:37 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
With some places being warmer, THIS drives the AVERAGE up.
OMFG this is so hilarious!
Yeah, the fact that YOU act like a little girlie effeminate liberal,
calling me hilarious, but not telling me how I'm wrong, IS hilarious.

Typical lying basement dweller... laughs and implies that someone is
wrong, but is too stupid to explain HOW that person is wrong.

Same thing lying left winger lieberals do every day... they SAY something
or someone is this or that, but NEVER offer any proof. Then, when pressed
to PROVE what they've said, repeat the lie over and over again, then
change the subject.

Saul Alinsky would be proud... say ANYTHING, just as long as the end
justifies the means.

Tell us, brainiac... what EXACTLY is so hilarious about what I said?

How DO we get "global temperatures", if the AVERAGE of data points isn't
used?

Was it that I said that there are colder places on Earth causing the
AVERAGE global temperature to remain pretty much steady?

You don't think that's true? THAT'S hilarious.

Whooooo... a whole 1.0°C rise in AVERAGE temperature over the course of a
hundred and forty years.

We're all gonna DIIIIIIIIIE.

Are you trying to tell me that EVERY point on Earth that measurements are
made, is warmer than it used to be, and that there are NO colder areas
that keep the global AVERAGE in check, for the most part?

Riiiight.

You need to read up, dumb ass, because there are MANY places experiencing
colder climate.

=====

Does "Global Warming" mean it's warming everywhere?

No, "global warming" means Earth's AVERAGE annual air temperature is
rising, but not necessarily in EVERY SINGLE LOCATION across the globe.

Temperature trends across the entire globe aren't uniform.

"Despite areas experiencing an overall cooling trend, the majority of
places across the globe are warming."

Author: Caitlyn Kennedy - climate.gov

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If it weren't FOR those cooler areas... global temperatures WOULD be
higher, dumb fuck.

0.01° a year. Wow. We're all going to burn to a crisp after spontaneously
combusting!

=====

In case it WAS the "average" bit you thought was hilarious.

=====

"The World Meteorological Organisation recommends defining the temperature
of a location for a 24 hour period as the AVERAGE of the maximum and
minimum temperatures recorded during that period." - The Grantham
Institute


"For the lower troposphere (TLT), UAH find a global AVERAGE trend since
1978 of +0.140 °C/decade, to January 2011." - Wiki

=====

Global Temperature
Latest annual AVERAGE anomaly: 2017 - 0.9 °C

The time series below shows the five-year AVERAGE variation of global
surface temperatures. - NASA.gov


What Is Earth's AVERAGE Temperature? Absolute estimates of the global
AVERAGE temperature are difficult to compile. - space.com

ESTIMATES????
JTEM is right
2018-11-25 05:59:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Global warming is taking the AVERAGE of many points on Earth.
With some places being warmer, THIS drives the AVERAGE up.
the problem is, as the criticisms of one recent official
report demonstrated, there isn't even any increases on
which to base a claim of rising "Averages."

Temperatures peaked in the 1930s only to tumble -- the earth
entered a cool period. This cool period ended in the very
late 1970s and the climate appears to have warmed... though
still well below that seen in the 1930s.

There is no "Global Warming." Period. None. In fact, it looks
like we humans, if we do change the climate, have done a
stellar job at COOLING the planet. That, between all our
sun-blocking pollution and energy-repelling sulfurs we actually
managed to keep the planet from warming up like it should have,
would have & actually did in previous interglacial periods.

I would be amongest the very first to celebrate "Warming" if
it were true, and it just plain isn't true.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/180426112768
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-26 18:29:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The hockey stick graph is blatant fraud.
Using a clear statistical trick, which these fraudists use elswhere when they can.

First the choose their data sets. Then they 'smooth' the data.
Then they carefully choose a data set that 'trends' how they wish the main graph to go.

With the overly smoothed graph, they do overamplification, which then makes the graph, like the hockey stick, to show a false trend caused by the one variant proxy.

Violating the valid statistics and math of the average of the composite of proxies, where the one selected proxie overides the average of the many. Pure deliberate fraud.

So if you look closely at world statistics, they are ALL manipulated to be 'smoothed' to the fullest so that the chosen proxies can dictate the graph.There is no warming trend in world statistics if one analyzes the records individually and pre-WWII records were 'lost' and only a corrected version is available.

In US temperature statistics there is no warming trend at all. These records still exist and have not been lost and forged like world statistics. Also US statistics from before WWII are more standardized than the world statistics.

In fact tree ring studies from the Ural Mountains show a decline of temperatures in the 20th century. Phil Jones is on record in his emails of using Mann's bogus statistical trick withn these studies by using data of 1 valley to overide the other data in attempt to 'hide the decline' which the true data shows.

However, European temperatures and W Australia have a rise.

But most important is the impact of 1 species of pine tree from N America that totally drives the hockey stick.

Mann in his carefully designed fraud doesn't even use a region, and uses the 1 proxy to overide the data sets of more than a hundred proxies, which he uses merely as camoflouge for this fraud.

Thus the state of the art of climatology and the process of 'science' that the criminals and fools demand modern civilization devote it's existence, according to the perpetrated phobia, paranoia, and hysteria of global warming.

And the pretext that by giving them complete control of the use of carbon and energy, and thus economic function, they can remedy the problem they have invented.

Evidence of complicity and cooperation in the fraud are clearly apparent in the climate-gate emails. Mann, Jones, Trenberth and others are clearly in cooperation in perpetrating this fraud, falsification of science, and suppresion of valid science.
AlleyCat
2018-11-26 21:29:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
First the choose their data sets. Then they 'smooth' the data.
What our "out of control" rising temperatures look like when the "y" axis
isn't blown wildly out of proportion to "x".

Loading Image...

Loading Image...
Kym Horsell
2018-11-26 21:34:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Post by k***@gmail.com
First the choose their data sets. Then they 'smooth' the data.
What our "out of control" rising temperatures look like when the "y" axis
isn't blown wildly out of proportion to "x".
http://i.imgur.com/1zhNoaJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/D8j1Z4g.jpg
Here's one that wasn't drawn by kooks:

<<Loading Image...>
AlleyCat
2018-11-27 00:48:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:34:54 -0800 (PST), Kym Horsell says...
Yup.
Post by Kym Horsell
<<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr6ZhwWVsAAakjz.jpg>
Astute observation, bogan. Maybe, next time the kooks will make the "y"
axis 10" for every ONE whole degree, so ALL of the low-IQ'd and low-
information dregs of society out there will believe it.

Until then, they have the Internet to research and study it on their own,
all the while determining for themselves how big of crackpots you whining
little ninnies are.


THIS is what a graph showing ONE whole degree of temperature should look
like... so as not to scare the wittle bogan chillwen like you, of course.

Loading Image...
--
Climate Hillbilly Davis

It's "weather" when the temperatures don't agree with what climate
screechers have to say, and then it's climate change, when it does.

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
http://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI

Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

Climate Change Scientists Caught Tampering With Data to Show Rising Sea
Levels

"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
Temperature Data"

"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"

"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"

"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"

"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"

"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"

"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"

"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught

**********************************************************

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/
*****
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
*****
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/
*****
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
*****
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-27 13:56:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://climateaudit.org/?s=Waldo+in+North+America+&submit=Search
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-26 21:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
""""""""""
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
""""""""""""""

.......
These quack and charlatan scientists better hope that their lawyers are better at law than they are at science or sociology and how people feel about being fed FALSE STATISTICS, and false theoretical science.

Including the simple and basic science and facts of merely emissions, rates and quantities, and factual reporting of world statistics and GROWTH, in conjuction with their lie and propaganda statement, that any program can mitigate the calamity which they describe.

The their FRAUD, DECEPTION, and OMISSION OF PERTINENT FACTS, in cooperation, and under oath of US public servant, amounts to an act of war.

And promotion of the violence and threats of the deranged BELIVERS in the propaganda, in a holy war against our fundamental existence.
Kym Horsell
2018-11-26 22:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
""""""""""
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
""""""""""""""
.......
These quack and charlatan scientists better hope that their lawyers are better at law than they are at science or sociology and how people feel about being fed FALSE STATISTICS, and false theoretical science.
Including the simple and basic science and facts of merely emissions, rates and quantities, and factual reporting of world statistics and GROWTH, in conjuction with their lie and propaganda statement, that any program can mitigate the calamity which they describe.
The their FRAUD, DECEPTION, and OMISSION OF PERTINENT FACTS, in cooperation, and under oath of US public servant, amounts to an act of war.
And promotion of the violence and threats of the deranged BELIVERS in the propaganda, in a holy war against our fundamental existence.
Quack quack quack quack quack.

Take your meds.
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-27 14:11:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Quack quack quack quack quack.
....

Keep practicing and you may perfect the intonatin of school of climate enthusiasm, the proper squawking of the out of control parrots, which someone mistakenly left in the same room with food wand water, and who taught themselves the limited and simple repeated concepts by which they gain so much enjoyment in their communal squawking about the inevitable DOOMSDAY SCENARIO.
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-27 14:46:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzLSCtO7gbDhUjAwTWM4WHkyRDA/view

This reading from a solar observatory shows the 400Wm-2 missing from the 1368Wm-2 of the solar constant. The missing energy is almost all in the infrared with energy less than 1-2um.

The O2 and N2 in the stratosphere absorb these photons, causing the thermal inversion.

This reduction in solar constant prevents the normal and ordinary temperature of 250F (121C), of the moon in the 1368Wm-2 solar energy at earth's orbital radius.

Ultraviolet beyond 3nm also does not reach the surface but is absorbed by the gas molecules and converted to lower frequencies in the energy content of the gases.

The solar energy from the sun obeys Planck's distribution law for 5780K, radiating its energy 50% in the visible, 41% in the infrared, and 9% in the ultrciolet.

Visible light can pass through atmospheric gases, mostly unabsorbed. Infrared and ultraviolet do not. At greater incident angle, more of the visible light is absorbed and prevented from reaching the surface.

Solar energy reaching the surface is almost all visible and near infrared.

This should be absolutely the primary and initial point in studying solar energy and atmosphere. But this most imortant fact of the solar energy absorbed by the stratosphere is purposefully hidden and ignored by the CHARLATANS, CRIMINALS AND FOOLS OF THE BELIEVERS.

But it PROVES that the theory FALSE that some specific trace gases called 'greenhouse gases' exist, differentiated from other gases, and that these affect the thermodynamics of the earth at all.

AND ALL ASSOCIATED THEORY, FULLY INVENTED FICTION TO SUPPORT THE FRAUD AND SEDITION OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

Science vs SUPERSTITION
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-28 09:56:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your whining is FUTILE
Prepare for DOOMSDAY SCENARIO
AlleyCat
2018-11-24 21:22:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 04:35:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Sr. says...
"He is a clown ? a dangerous clown, because he has the power to take my
precious grants and job away and causing wifey to leave me", he said.
Well said.
--
It's "weather" when the temperatures don't agree with what climate
screechers have to say, and then it's climate change, when it does.

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
http://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/

*****

"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/

*****

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/

*****

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

*****

United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
AlleyCat
2018-11-24 22:15:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And in no time in history has heat built up so much and so quickly as in the last 150 years.
Bullshit.

It's, done it, before, and WITHOUT, 7 billion people, breathing and,
planes, trains and, automobiles and, buses and, coal-fired, electric
plants.

LOL... one WHOLE degree (°C) rise in a hundred and forty years? That's
UNPRECEDENTED?? Eh... no.

Get that from NASA, didja? Yup. NASA's careful to always include a
"disclaimer"...

=====

NASA: Earth is warming at a pace "unprecedented...
... in 1,000 years".

Records of temperature that go back far further than 1800s suggest warming
of recent decades is out of step with any period over the "PAST
MILLENNIUM". - theguardian.com

=====

[giggle]

They say millennium, instead of 1000 years, to make it seem like that's a
long time. Ya... it's .000002% of the past.

Soooo... out of 4,500,000,000 years, they're only looking at the last 1000
to compare to today?

Yup, real science there, boy. That's dishonest science.

Meanwhile, there are those NOT in the employ of the most "generous"
government on the planet, that have different data concerning past and
present temperatures and how fast they've risen or dropped.

=====

Analysis Shows Current Warming Is NOT Unprecedented -- It's Not Even
"Unusual"!

The climate calamity crowd claims that the warming we experienced in the
Twentieth Century is unprecedented... it has never happened before in
human history.

There have been 73 warming periods...

Temperatures in the Holocene (the past ±12,000 years), have been quite
volatile. The data counts 73 warming periods of at least 0.1 degrees per
decade (our present warming rate), and 80 cooling periods of that same
amount.

The HADCRUT4 data set was processed to six year resolution to simulate the
ice core data here. The warming in the six year period from 1975 to 1981,
had a rate of 0.27°C/decade.

But...

There were two periods in the ice core data with HIGHER warming rates, one
was in 1370 BCE where in a 12 year period the warming rate was 0.357°
C/decade. This period was bracketed by similar length periods with 0.25
and 0.16°C/decade warming periods. This 34-year period saw a warming of
nearly a degree (0.98°C) far exceeding the warming in the late Twentieth
Century.

Another period 8200 years ago (6200BCE) saw a 1.667°C warming in 71 years.
The people around at that time must have been truly panicked at the rapid
climate change and probably blamed it on the invention of beer.

=====

How on EARTH did it DO that, without Exxon?

=====

Prof. Ge's team found that the most rapid warming occurred over
AD 1870-2000, at a rate of 0.56 ± 0.42°C (100 yr); however,
temperatures recorded in the 20th century are not unprecedented
in the last 2000 years, as reconstruction showed records for
the period from 981 to 1100, and again from 1201 to 1270,
were comparable to those of the present warm period. - Phys.org

=====

If YOU want to prove these scientists wrong, YOU need to do it, instead of
relying on institutes that rely on government monies to keep their
projects and studies going to keep their wives happy driving their 6000lb,
SUVs.

Look at these spikes in temperature... do they LOOK any different than
what is going on today?

Loading Image...

Nope.

"Rapid" warming, is NOT a new thing.

You REALLY think that Earth's temperatures have never gone up one measly
degree in a 140 year span before?

Dumb ass.
RichA
2018-11-25 00:14:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It's a big conspiracee!!!! Peer review is just a euphemism
for "No oil industry shills, uncredentialed pseudo-scientists,
amateur bloggers, crackpots or corrupt politicians on the
payroll of big oil, allowed" And without them we wouldn't
have anybody to promote our wacko opinions and conspiracy
theories!!

Tim Ball, Alex Jones, Andrew Bolt, Jim Inhofe, his alleged
boyfriend Marc Morano, Fred Singer, and Lord Monckton are
busily doing climate change research in Lord Monckton's dungeon
laboratory at Castle Monckton as I write this, yet the peers
laugh at them as if they were politically motivated right wing
nutjobs spouting gibberish! That's why there is no legitimate
peer reviewed data disproving global warming or proving global
cooling.

See what I mean? It's a big conspiraceee!!!!

Right wing redneck scientists, talk show hosts and theologians like Pat
Robertson are being censored.

It's a great leftist conspiraceee! And only crack pot shut ins like me can
save the world!!!
Unum
2018-11-24 18:18:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Global Warming: Follow the Money
By Henry Payne
It isn't the fossil-fuel companies that are polluting climate science.
Spamming little moron thinks its ALL A CONSPIRACEEEEEE!

That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ― which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ―
on Black Friday, a popular shopping holiday the day after the Thanksgiving
holiday, indicates it wanted fewer people to see the news about the findings.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-assessment_us_5bf5b31fe4b0771fb6b57ccb

The United States already warmed on average 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the
past century and will warm at least 3 more degrees by 2100 unless fossil fuel
use is dramatically curtailed, scientists from more than a dozen federal
agencies concluded in their latest in-depth assessment.

The 13-agency consensus, authored by more than 300 researchers, found in the
second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment makes it clear the
world is barreling toward catastrophic ― perhaps irreversible ― climate
change. The report concluded that warming “could increase by 9°F (5°C) or more
by the end of this century” without significant emissions reductions.

“Observations of global average temperature provide clear and compelling
evidence the global average temperature is much higher and is rising more
rapidly than anything modern civilization has experienced,” said David
Easterling, chief of the scientific services division at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville,
North Carolina. “This warming trend can only be explained by human activities,
especially emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
AlleyCat
2018-11-24 05:55:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Just government agencies (scientists?), trying to guarantee their jobs,
money and wifey's happiness.

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
http://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI

**********************************************************

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/
*****
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
*****
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/
*****
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
*****
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
Kym Horsell
2018-11-24 07:58:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Just government agencies (scientists?), trying to guarantee their jobs,
money and wifey's happiness.
...

This hillbilly reason has nebba made sense.

Government scientists have a job whether they say the world will warm
1C, 2C, 3C. Why do their instruments show the same numbers world-wide?
It's not job security or the $bns they get paid. LOL.


--
[Climatologist, weather nurd or insurance salesman? Anobba blunder
of biblical proportions:]
Post by AlleyCat
What were WE doing in 1710 to cause this HEATWAVE?
Watch and learn from a REAL climatologist... not one who pretends to be
one on USENET, of all places. LOL
Loading Image...
[Unum:]
A hand drawn chart from a couple of weathermen, lol.
[Alleycat:]
LOL... ANOTHER lie... Cliff Harris is a CLIMATOLOGIST... are you? Noope.
-- Alleycat Computers & Car Detailing, 4/17/2016 6:09 PM
[Resident Ebil Eye:]
<Loading Image...>

Can you point to some of his publications, ratboy? As a CLIMATOLOGIST? Looks
to me like his background is insurance, lol. But he did write a peachy-keen
book! Complete with MANY capitalized RANDOM words like you!
http://weather-and-bible-prophecy.myshopify.com/
Cliff Harris presents a new book on the scientific and spiritual approaches
on how the WEATHER has played a MAJOR ROLE in the BIBLE.
-- Unum, 18 Apr 2016
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-24 09:47:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No warming caused by humans.
Fed agencies prove themselves defunct of science.

Temp at top of troposphere is -60, bottom of stratosphere.
Top of stratosphere is 5C. This is a considerable thermal inversion.

Solar radiation is 1368Wm-2 outside atmosphere. The intensity of solar energy is reduced nearly 1/3 in passing through the stratosphere. This missing radiation is by far, mostly of the infrared at wavelengths longer than around 1-2um. The absorption of these infrareds, means fewer and fewer of these photons reach the lower levels of the stratosphere.

The absorption of ultraviolet photons contributes also to the inversion, but only a small part compared to the energy from the infrareds.

THIS ABSORPTION CAN ONLY BE BY O2 AND N2 WHICH COMPOSE 99% OF ATMOSPHERIC GASES AND ARE DEFINED IN ELEMENTARY theory AS NON-GHGS. This means completely non-reactive and transparent to infrared radiation, which clearly is not the case.

The intial thermodynamic theory is that the atmosphere is warmed 58F, by the existence of GHGs. This is false and falsely construed only by the false and hidden values of solar radiation that reaches the earth's surface.

Anywhere on the moon in direct sunlight, or any extra-terrestrial craft, has the normal temperature of 250F. It is only the absorption by the stratosphere of these infrareds that keep temperatures much lower.

The absorption of these low frequency infrared by the O2 AND N2, also slows loss of heat energy when solar energy is not being absorbed, and prevents the drastic swings to even 100K which occur with lunar night.

There is no value or validity that GHGs warm the atmosphere.
Therfore utterly ridiculous that human contribution of trace amounts to trace gases in anyway affect temperature.

The lack of valid science or objective critism, makes this presentation to US law a high crime and treason towards the sanctity and survival of economic function.
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-24 09:49:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html
Kym Horsell
2018-11-24 09:56:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
No warming caused by humans.
Fed agencies prove themselves defunct of science.
...

Must grill you kooks that even the oil companies agree with the 99% of scientists
that say
- its us,
- its bad,
- theres still hope to fix it.
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-24 11:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"""...
Must grill you kooks that even the oil companies agree with the 99% of scientists
that say
- its us,
- its bad,
- theres still hope to fix it. ..."""

What kindof kick do you get from making up the lies and falsities of your propaganda and then believing it yourself?

Russian and Chinese scientists are not subject to the bullying of theoretical thought. They can certainly do their own science and math and and have some interest in the truth, and disdain for your ridiculous bullshit, that gives you your jollies and some weird and sick sense of self imortance.

Meaning you assholes are only destroyong valid theoretical science in the US and west.

You should be addressing China and their growth in emissions. Nothing anyone else does matters at all in terms of emissions if you were actually concerned with this.

But you are interminal WEENIES, who merely enjoy the sound of your WHINING which has nothing to do with real world science or sociology.

You are only mental masturbation, self infatuated bullshit which you can't keep to yourself, but wish to impose upon the victims of your lies who are the uneducated.
AlleyCat
2018-11-25 01:52:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 01:56:04 -0800 (PST), Kym Horsell says...
Post by Kym Horsell
99% of scientists
that say
- its us
John Cook the "CARTOONIST", came up with that gem of a lie.

John Cook is most known for the paper he co-authored in 2013 claiming the
97% consensus in the field of climate science that man is the cause for
the majority of the Earth's warming over the last century.

On further investigation into his methodologies it was discovered that he
and several of his co-conspirators through out a large portion of the data
and classified papers as agreeing with the consensus when they contained
NO SUCH LANGUAGE.

Out of the over 11,000 papers his team investigated only
around 50 actually fully endorsed the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic
Warming. Around 0.3%.
--
Climate Hillbilly Davis
AlleyCat
2018-11-25 01:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 01:56:04 -0800 (PST), Kym Horsell says...
Post by Kym Horsell
99% of scientists
that say
- its us
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The BULLSHIT of the 97%.

https://vimeo.com/203652183

The Myth of the Climate Change "97%"

What is the origin of the false belief, constantly repeated, that almost
all scientists agree about global warming?

Because OBAMA said that 97% of all scientists agree, is FURTHER proof,
that "that" is a LIE!

OBAMA SAID IT! LOL

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at
Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-
seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is
urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President
Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists
agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from
NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-
seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over
the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a
man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from
a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been
contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay
published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at
Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published
in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported
the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed
warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out
"dangerous" - and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as
Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who
question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A
study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of
academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the
papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in
"Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall
Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's
thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question
online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed
"97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have
risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who
are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer
"yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact
is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar
scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or
astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural
causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views
of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise
and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed
papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists-of the 3,146 who
responded to the survey-does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University,
used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on
climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National
Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200
most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse
gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming."
There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and,
of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to
the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends
reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011.
Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or
implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming.
His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August
2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the
University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic
Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and
found "only 41 papers-0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent
of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent-had been found to
endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current
warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola
Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions
the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented
their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch -most recently published in Environmental Science &
Policy in 2010-have found that most climate scientists disagree with the
consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and
computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud
formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future
climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged
consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who
responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-which claims
to speak for more than 2,500 scientists-is probably the most frequently
cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human
interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change
poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either
written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How
much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the
20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC
lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth
Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative
forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by
scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and
physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most
signatures-more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most
recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed
since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific
evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other
greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the
Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the
claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a
dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a
principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville
and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning
Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
--
Climate Hillbilly Davis
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-24 10:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"""...
The United States already warmed on average 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the
past century and will warm at least 3 more degrees by 2100 unless fossil fuel
use is dramatically curtailed, scientists from more than a dozen federal
agencies concluded in their latest in-depth assessment. ..."""

Total lies and bullshit. No reasonable statistical analysis shows US temperatures increasing by 1.8F last 100 yrs. The scientists perpetrating this lie and fraud, and allowing it in public reports, should be hunted down like dogs and tried for their high crime of treason which can be punishable by death.

To imply that there is remedy in carbon ABATEMENT REGIME is also a FLAT lie, promoted and supported only by false and FRAUDULENT RENDERING oF statistics.

Everyone of the scientists signing to this farce of a scientific report, must be held accountable for these seditious and DEADLY lies.

By these quacks own science, only complete ELIMINATION of co2 output can avert their imaginary catastrophe, which means they are insisting upon the suicide and genocide of modern society.
Unum
2018-11-24 18:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kym Horsell
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Just government agencies (scientists?), trying to guarantee their jobs,
money and wifey's happiness.
...
This hillbilly reason has nebba made sense.
Government scientists have a job whether they say the world will warm
1C, 2C, 3C. Why do their instruments show the same numbers world-wide?
It's not job security or the $bns they get paid. LOL.
Argument by youtube video, lol!
Catoni
2018-11-24 22:57:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kym Horsell
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Just government agencies (scientists?), trying to guarantee their jobs,
money and wifey's happiness.
...
This hillbilly reason has nebba made sense.
Government scientists have a job whether they say the world will warm
1C, 2C, 3C. Why do their instruments show the same numbers world-wide?
It's not job security or the $bns they get paid. LOL.
You mean THESE numbers ? ? ? LOL

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

Your scientists are getting paid to find a problem or something wrong..

They are not getting paid to say there is no problem or that everything is normal. If they said that... their funding would get cut off....you idiot.
Unum
2018-11-25 05:23:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by Kym Horsell
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Just government agencies (scientists?), trying to guarantee their jobs,
money and wifey's happiness.
...
This hillbilly reason has nebba made sense.
Government scientists have a job whether they say the world will warm
1C, 2C, 3C. Why do their instruments show the same numbers world-wide?
It's not job security or the $bns they get paid. LOL.
You mean THESE numbers ? ? ? LOL
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Debunked here over and over.
Post by Catoni
Your scientists are getting paid to find a problem or something wrong..
Prove it or STFU.
Post by Catoni
They are not getting paid to say there is no problem or that everything is normal. If they said that... their funding would get cut off....you idiot.
Got any examples? Or any evidence of any kind whatsoever, you hateful
old nutjob?
Catoni
2018-11-25 13:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
You mean THESE numbers ? ? ? LOL
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Debunked here over and over.
No cite means you tell lies again.... as usual !
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Your scientists are getting paid to find a problem or something wrong..
Prove it or STFU.
It ain't necessary to prove common sense facts ....except perhaps to brain dead extreme leftists, brain dead extreme far right nuts, and brain dead Muslim extremists.

Which one are you ? ?
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
They are not getting paid to say there is no problem or that everything is normal. If they said that... their funding would get cut off....you idiot.
Got any examples? Or any evidence of any kind whatsoever, you hateful
old nutjob?
Again...for the benefit of the mentally challenged "Unum"...... It ain't necessary to prove common sense facts ....except perhaps to brain dead extreme leftists, brain dead extreme far right nuts, and brain dead Muslim extremists.

Which one are you ? ?
Unum
2018-11-25 15:21:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
You mean THESE numbers ? ? ? LOL
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Debunked here over and over.
No cite means you tell lies again.... as usual !
Why does the stinking pile of hate post the same brainless
garbage year after year?
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Your scientists are getting paid to find a problem or something wrong..
Prove it or STFU.
It ain't necessary to prove common sense facts ....except perhaps to brain dead extreme leftists, brain dead extreme far right nuts, and brain dead Muslim extremists.
Prove it or STFU.
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-25 19:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
.."""However, over the fifteen years to 2016 the HadCRUT4v5 and Cowtan & Way GMST trends, of 0.138°C /century and 0.160°C /century respectively, are equally close to the 0.149°C /century ERAinterim trend; the GISTEMP and NOAAv4.0.1 trends are both above 0.17°C /century..."""

This is summary of the 4 main temperature analysis and computation of 'average, and trend.
All show recent temp rise FLAT.

No recent temperature rise to go with the fraudulent statement that US temps have risen 1.8F in last 100yrs

These statiatics show .01C per 10yrs.
Mathematically NEGLIGIBLE

Our 'public' servants in temperature and propaganda should upgrade their statistics and pronouncememts. We pay a lot of money to get anything other than factual and COMPLETE reporting.
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-25 20:17:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Im melting,,,MEELLLLTTTING!!!

A day in the life of a greenie...

Getting kinda hot today. And stuffy. All that carbon dioxide seeping in and polluting my environment.

I would buy an air conditioner but I don't live next to a nuclear power plant with good clean environmentally safe energy supply. And I refuse to contribute to the melting of Antarctica by paricipation with the insanity of supporting the use of carbon fuels. So I'll just sit here and moan in the stifilling heat about what the temperature may be 100 yrs from now.

And going to the grocery store is shameful. All that food absorbing the damn pollution, co2, from the air and composing it into those dreadful carbon compounds which when metabolized make ME start polluting by BREATHING.

And all that carbon used in producing the food. Cultivating, irrigating, harvesting, processing, refrigerating, transporting, cooking, etc, etc.

If they would be only have a 'carbon free' aisle, 'No carbon used in the production of these foods'. Then I could shop without all this terrible guilt

SHAMEFUL SHAMEFUL
All this melting the ice, so that the poor polar bears have to eat the little seals on dry land.

IT'S ALL MELTING, MEEELLLLTING...
AND ITS ALL MY FAULT

The oceans are gonna flood. I'll have to take a canoe to work instead of my bicycle. The insects and disease ridden arthropods going wild. The coral bleaching. People displaced by global warming causing all the strife in the mid-east.

But as a silver lining, my greenie investments should do good if we can just force everyone to comply with our carbon abatement program, based on 'regulation' of co2 by the economic stranglation of the carbon regulation regimen.

Who really cares if it can be effective. These damn deniers should be PUNISHED for not believing in the calamity and doomsday of their use of carbon.
AlleyCat
2018-11-25 23:22:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:21:36 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
You mean THESE numbers ? ? ? LOL
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Debunked here over and over.
No cite means you tell lies again.... as usual !
Why does the stinking pile of hate post the same brainless
garbage year after year?
Because you stinking pile of basement dwelling effeminate mommy's boys,
who post their climate lies to Usenet 24/7, without anyone asking by the
way, need to be reminded that they're full of shit, and that the earth
will be jusssst fine without your whining about rich people and the
"right".

THAT'S what all this is about... power and money... money YOU don't have
and the power you lack. Big oil and gas has it, so you try to convince
everyone that THEY are the ones causing the earth to warm up after an ice
age, the same way it's done countless times... JUST as fast and JUST as
warm, and just in the last 10,000 years alone.

Loading Image...

The number of years Earth has been WARMER in the past 10,000 years, FAR
exceeds the years it's been cooler.

Loading Image...
--
Climate Hillbilly Davis
Unum
2018-11-25 23:59:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Unum
Why does the stinking pile of hate post the same brainless
garbage year after year?
Because you stinking pile of basement dwelling effeminate mommy's boys,
who post their climate lies to Usenet 24/7, without anyone asking by the
way, need to be reminded that they're full of shit, and that the earth
will be jusssst fine without your whining about rich people and the
"right".
Not according to the federal climate report issued by the Trump
administration, you sad spamming little moron.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/23/major-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damages-are-intensifying-across-country/

The federal government on Friday released a long-awaited report with an
unmistakable message: The effects of climate change, including deadly
wildfires, increasingly debilitating hurricanes and heat waves, are already
battering the United States, and the danger of more such catastrophes is
worsening.

The authors argue that global warming “is transforming where and how we live
and presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the
economy, and the natural systems that support us.” And they conclude that
humans must act aggressively to adapt to current impacts and mitigate future
catastrophes “to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment,
and human health and well-being over the coming decades.”
AlleyCat
2018-11-26 00:19:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 17:59:43 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Because you stinking pile of basement dwelling effeminate mommy's boys,
who post their climate lies to Usenet 24/7, without anyone asking by the
way, need to be reminded that they're full of shit, and that the earth
will be jusssst fine without your whining about rich people and the
"right".
Not according to the federal climate report issued by the Trump
administration, you sad spamming little moron.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/23/major
-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damages-are-intensifying
-across-country/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7c20f60c717c
Spamming little moron, spams again. How many times you going to spam that
spam, spammer?

And how many times do you need to be told, basement rat, that these
climate reports are nothing but smoke and mirrors, designed to elicit MORE
research and study? Find something wrong... keep your job. Don't, and
you're outta here.

It's their way of guaranteeing their survival. If they DON'T come up with
doomsday scenarios, they lose their funding.

ANY 4th grader can figure THAT out... you basement dwelling third grader.

The ONLY reason they can say, at all, that there will be more
"catastrophes", is because we keep building where hurricanes and wildfires
occur NATURALLY... coastlines and desert regions.

No one gives a shit when a hurricane, more powerful than most, hits a
remote section of beach and land and does relatively little damage.

If the California fires had just burned timberland and bushes and killed
no one... no one would care, then say, "It was good for the forests."

The left, lieberals, and Democrats LIVE off of death and destruction.

Why didn't we hear a peep out of you basement dwelling mommy's boys, when
there was hardly a hurricane for 12 years?

There's no money in that.

=====

"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train running."
http://youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI

UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-climate-change-used-
un-promote-economic-agenda/

*****

"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/

*****

U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-
destroy-capitalism/

*****

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-
admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

*****

United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2015-02-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
Unum
2018-11-26 01:59:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 17:59:43 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Because you stinking pile of basement dwelling effeminate mommy's boys,
who post their climate lies to Usenet 24/7, without anyone asking by the
way, need to be reminded that they're full of shit, and that the earth
will be jusssst fine without your whining about rich people and the
"right".
Not according to the federal climate report issued by the Trump
administration, you sad spamming little moron.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/23/major
-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damages-are-intensifying
-across-country/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7c20f60c717c
Spamming little moron, spams again. How many times you going to spam that
spam, spammer?
Yap yap yap, so much brainless blabbering. So the earth won't be just
fine and isn't even fine right now? Ratboy can't refute a single word
of the well-referenced report.
Post by AlleyCat
And how many times do you need to be told, basement rat, that these
climate reports are nothing but smoke and mirrors, designed to elicit MORE
research and study? Find something wrong... keep your job. Don't, and
you're outta here.
Its all a CONSPIRACEEEE! Why does ratboy hate humanity so much?

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/

The impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United
States and are projected to intensify in the future—but the severity of future
impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur. Americans increasingly
recognize the risks climate change poses to their everyday lives and
livelihoods and are beginning to respond (Figure 1.1). Water managers in the
Colorado River Basin have mobilized users to conserve water in response to
ongoing drought intensified by higher temperatures, and an extension program
in Nebraska is helping ranchers reduce drought and heat risks to their
operations. The state of Hawai‘i is developing management options to promote
coral reef recovery from widespread bleaching events caused by warmer waters
that threaten tourism, fisheries, and coastal protection from wind and waves.
To address higher risks of flooding from heavy rainfall, local governments in
southern Louisiana are pooling hazard reduction funds, and cities and states
in the Northeast are investing in more resilient water, energy, and
transportation infrastructure. In Alaska, a tribal health organization is
developing adaptation strategies to address physical and mental health
challenges driven by climate change and other environmental changes. As
Midwestern farmers adopt new management strategies to reduce erosion and
nutrient losses caused by heavier rains, forest managers in the Northwest are
developing adaptation strategies in response to wildfire increases that affect
human health, water resources, timber production, fish and wildlife, and
recreation. After extensive hurricane damage fueled in part by a warmer
atmosphere and warmer, higher seas, communities in Texas are considering ways
to rebuild more resilient infrastructure. In the U.S. Caribbean, governments
are developing new frameworks for storm recovery based on lessons learned from
the 2017 hurricane season.
AlleyCat
2018-11-26 02:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Unum says... Its all a CONSPIRACEEEE!
Wally W.
2018-11-26 03:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Unum says... Its all a CONSPIRACEEEE!
It's a truth in wannabe jest.

Admitting the truth is a step in the right direction.
Unum
2018-11-26 04:41:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Unum says... Its all a CONSPIRACEEEE!
Why does ratboy hate humanity so darn much?


https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/

This report draws a direct connection between the warming atmosphere and the
resulting changes that affect Americans’ lives, communities, and livelihoods,
now and in the future. It documents vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts
associated with natural climate variability and human-caused climate change
across the United States and provides examples of response actions underway in
many communities. It concludes that the evidence of human-caused climate
change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of
climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related
threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising.
Catoni
2018-11-26 01:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Unum
Why does the stinking pile of hate post the same brainless
garbage year after year?
Because you stinking pile of basement dwelling effeminate mommy's boys,
who post their climate lies to Usenet 24/7, without anyone asking by the
way, need to be reminded that they're full of shit, and that the earth
will be jusssst fine without your whining about rich people and the
"right".
Not according to the federal climate report issued by the Trump
administration, you sad spamming little moron.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/23/major-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damages-are-intensifying-across-country/
The federal government on Friday released a long-awaited report with an
unmistakable message: The effects of climate change, including deadly
wildfires, increasingly debilitating hurricanes and heat waves, are already
battering the United States, and the danger of more such catastrophes is
worsening.
The authors argue that global warming “is transforming where and how we live
and presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the
economy, and the natural systems that support us.” And they conclude that
humans must act aggressively to adapt to current impacts and mitigate future
catastrophes “to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment,
and human health and well-being over the coming decades.”
Yep... the organizations are still packed full of leftist activist Lie berals, Socialists and Panicking Warming Alarmists.....

Have to somehow get rid of them...
Kym Horsell
2018-11-26 00:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:21:36 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
Post by Unum
Post by Catoni
You mean THESE numbers ? ? ? LOL
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Debunked here over and over.
No cite means you tell lies again.... as usual !
Why does the stinking pile of hate post the same brainless
garbage year after year?
Because you stinking pile of basement dwelling effeminate mommy's boys,
who post their climate lies to Usenet 24/7,
Said the original cross-posting hillbilly crank.
Post by AlleyCat
...
--
Do you think weak-ass Florence caused any acorns to fall onto some
climastrologist's empty head?
-- AlleyCat Computers and Car Detailing, 17 Sep 2018

Did you know:
Florence is the sixth-costliest Atlantic hurricane.
Fatalities: 53
Damage: >$16.7 bn
-- wikipedia
AlleyCat
2018-11-26 01:16:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:10:11 -0800 (PST), Kym Horsell says...
Post by Kym Horsell
Post by AlleyCat
Because you stinking pile of basement dwelling effeminate mommy's boys,
who post their climate lies to Usenet 24/7,
Said the original cross-posting hillbilly crank.
"Original"?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm the first to cross-post. Wow... that's even stupider than the
stupidest bogan saying, "Here... hold my beer, while I box this 8 foot
Jack."

NO ONE said anything about "cross-posting", bogan. I can see where YOU'D
take offense. "You" post to Usenet 24/7. LOL What a shut-in.

It's a good thing that I have your bogan robot killfiled. NO ONE wants to
see 24/7 lies, and opinions that are lies.

Typical little whining leftard... posts shit not discussed, so he can make
a pointless point and so he can feel good about himself being a sad sack
little shut-in, who IS on the computer 24/7, even IF it's via a computer
bot.

#sad

So... is "climate change" NOT a political topic now?

Why yes... yes it is, you bogan hillbilly.

=====

"Climate Change, Politics, Technology and Our Way of Life" - Columbia.edu

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/10/15/climate-change-politics-
technology-way-life/

=====

Policy & POLITICS - Yale.edu

Stopping GLOBAL WARMING will require coordinated policies by national,
state, and local governments. Our research measures, tracks and explains
the drivers of public support for CLIMATE and energy policies and the
larger POLITICS of GLOBAL WARMING, including elections, POLITICAL parties
and POLITICAL ideology.

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/topic/policy-and-politics/

=====

The Climate Is Changing. Here's How Politics Will Also Change -
washingtonpost.com

"CLIMATE POLITICS are also changing, from a contest of who wins and loses
to one of survival for communities and ways of life."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/10/08/the-climate-
is-changing-heres-how-politics-will-also-change/?utm_term=.9078bb65aa66

=====

Politics & Climate Change: Will Hurricane Florence Sway This North
Carolina Race? - insideclimatenews.org

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21092018/election-florence-north-
carolina-climate-change-mccready-harris-trump-women

=====

Political Science + Climate Change

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science+environment/climate-
change

=====

Dumb ass bogan.
--
Climate Hillbilly Davis
Unum
2018-11-24 18:22:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum says...
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ? which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ?
Just government agencies (scientists?), trying to guarantee their jobs,
money and wifey's happiness.
Its all A CONSPIRACEEEEE!


https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/23/major-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damages-are-intensifying-across-country/

The report’s authors, who represent numerous federal agencies, say they are
more certain than ever that climate change poses a severe threat to Americans'
health and pocketbooks, as well as to the country’s infrastructure and natural
resources. And while it avoids policy recommendations, the report’s sense of
urgency and alarm stands in stark contrast to the lack of any apparent plan
from President Trump to tackle the problems, which, according to the
government he runs, are increasingly dire.

That report is striking in its clear statement that climate change is not only
already affecting the U.S., but that the effects are getting worse.

“This report draws a direct connection between the warming atmosphere and the
resulting changes that affect Americans' lives, communities, and livelihoods,
now and in the future,” the document reads, concluding that “the evidence of
human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that
the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that
climate-related threats to Americans' physical, social, and economic well-
being are rising.”
JTEM is right
2018-11-28 15:55:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Just government agencies (scientists?), trying to guarantee their jobs,
money and wifey's happiness.
Wait. Wasn't it tinkling all over itself because the
U.S. is slashing coal use, wind & solar have surpassed
fossils in power generation (past tense) thus CO2 has
to be dropping like a rock? Now we're going to see a
3C rise in 81 years just the same?

Why do we bother then? Let's just burn the coal.





---

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/180426112768
k***@gmail.com
2018-12-02 18:03:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Overall world electeicity generation from carbon is increasing, now in the low 90 percentiles.
This is almost entirely due to China's increased use of coal.
They may have built a bunch of renewables but have not stopped expansion of coal.
They only agreed with the Paris Accord that in 2030 they will look at economic conditions and consider reducing their GROWTH.

They are now increasing their emmision rate, 10-12% that of US EACH YR, and by 2030 will be around 4 times greater than US.

It is purely a seditious fairy tale that China is in anyway participating in csrbon reduction. In fact their increasing use of coal makes all other efforts absolutely FUTILE.

But when were the greenies actually interested in the truth with their 'most important threat' facing civilization?


http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html
k***@gmail.com
2018-12-02 18:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzLSCtO7gbDhUjAwTWM4WHkyRDA/view

Kooks have to account for existing co2 to fan their hysteria of our use of carbon. This most pertinent fact, that only 950Wm-2 of the original 1368Wm-2 makes it through the stratosphere is hidden and completely omited from theory and their 'science'.

This shows that the stratosphere absorbs nearly 1/3 of solar radiation and keeps temperatures from the normal, 394K, 121C, or 250F of the moon, and anything in direct solar radiation outside the atmosphere.

No warming of 58F by natural GHGs is occuring. NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON TEMPERATURE OR CLIMATE BY ANTHROPOGENIC CARBON DIOXIDE.
k***@gmail.com
2018-12-02 18:23:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Loading Image...
k***@gmail.com
2018-12-02 19:35:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
58F equates to 390Wm-2.

This is considered the 'average' temperature of the earth. In the schools of climate enthusiasm, the trending BELIEF is that witbout GHGs in the atmosphere, (with only O2 and N2, which compose 90%), the 'transparent and non-reactive to infrared', GASES, would only retain outgoing 'longwave' radiation of earth's temperature,,
To the extent that earths average temperature would be around 0degF.

With water vapor, which is about 1% total average, and co2 (.04%) and methane (around 1 part per million), these particular gases .

The theory makes no sense from the git-go, on what happens to energy retained by these gases, or what happens to energy of day time heating, but it is depicted in diagram chunks of Wm-2 added and subtracted in which the energy 'at the surface' is 390Wm-2, which is 58F.

They acount directly that 324Wm-2 is 'returned to the surface'.by the specific greenhouse gases.

0degF (255K) is 240Wm-2. 390 - 240 is 150Wm-2.

So the belief is that the trace gases increase the energy and tsmperature by about 40%, from 240Wm-2 to 390Wm-2.

Without 02 or N2 on the moon, temperature is 250F.

And also, the wimpy quack decision to only calibrate with the atmosphere instead of with the ENTIRE HEAT CAPACITY of the earth is bogus.

Almost all of the atmosphere is below 13 miles.
It is 4500 miles to the center of the eath. All rock.
k***@gmail.com
2018-12-04 03:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.global-warming/Hjg4mrFrkyw
k***@gmail.com
2018-12-02 18:05:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706
DESMODUS
2018-11-24 11:21:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What is this continued ridiculous use of degrees F ! if you use it it means you are a F-ing idiot !
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ― which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ―
on Black Friday, a popular shopping holiday the day after the Thanksgiving
holiday, indicates it wanted fewer people to see the news about the findings.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-assessment_us_5bf5b31fe4b0771fb6b57ccb
The United States already warmed on average 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the
past century and will warm at least 3 more degrees by 2100 unless fossil fuel
use is dramatically curtailed, scientists from more than a dozen federal
agencies concluded in their latest in-depth assessment.
The 13-agency consensus, authored by more than 300 researchers, found in the
second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment makes it clear the
world is barreling toward catastrophic ― perhaps irreversible ― climate
change. The report concluded that warming “could increase by 9°F (5°C) or more
by the end of this century” without significant emissions reductions.
“Observations of global average temperature provide clear and compelling
evidence the global average temperature is much higher and is rising more
rapidly than anything modern civilization has experienced,” said David
Easterling, chief of the scientific services division at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville,
North Carolina. “This warming trend can only be explained by human activities,
especially emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-24 15:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
""" The report concluded that warming “could increase by 9°F (5°C) or more
by the end of this century” without significant emissions reductions. """

This is a false statement even within the domain of greenie dynamics.
...significant emissions reductions. """ means nothing since calibrations àre done on 'quantity to temperature' basis and mere reduction of rate only lengthens the time slightly until same quantity is reached. ONLY COMPLETE ELIMINATION can possibly have ANY DESIRED EFFECT of limiting temperature.

So according to grennie philosophy, all carbon must be eliminated, even that from concrete production which is 15% of co2 emmisions. Only at this point of complete elimination does the Paris Accord, 1.75C above preindustrial level, kick in.

Without complete elimination or with only 'significant reductions', temperatures continue to rise, according to contemporary theory.

Any measure of 'reduction' only delays the time until same quantity and catastrophe by a few months or years, and thus of ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE WHATSOEVER.

Pure nonsense, fraud and unwarranted aggresion against humanity.
Catoni
2018-11-24 22:34:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
That the White House opted to release the long-awaited update on climate
change ― which Congress mandates the administration provide every four years ―
on Black Friday, a popular shopping holiday the day after the Thanksgiving
holiday, indicates it wanted fewer people to see the news about the findings.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-assessment_us_5bf5b31fe4b0771fb6b57ccb
The United States already warmed on average 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the
past century and will warm at least 3 more degrees by 2100 unless fossil fuel
use is dramatically curtailed, scientists from more than a dozen federal
agencies concluded in their latest in-depth assessment.
The 13-agency consensus, authored by more than 300 researchers, found in the
second volume of the Fourth National Climate Assessment makes it clear the
world is barreling toward catastrophic ― perhaps irreversible ― climate
change. The report concluded that warming “could increase by 9°F (5°C) or more
by the end of this century” without significant emissions reductions.
Hmmmm.... Hey "Unum" the Liar...... I've got an idea....

Let's see how their predictions have held up so far, shall we ? ?

Here we go..:

Loading Image...
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-24 23:02:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hope they sent a copy of their report to China, India, and Russia, so these deliquents can get on the fucking ball and eliminate their co2 emissions to stop all this warming.

Well if they don't, the greenies can always falsify and forge the statistics, and therefore claim China to be the leader in environmental and blaim global warming on the US and the unholy deniers.

In the meantime, California and Jerry Brown, the crusader, will just have to suck it up and live with the real pollution which thankfully for China, is transferred accross the Pacific to California lessening the iimpact on them.

True statistic is that by 2030, China will grow to about 4 times that of US in emmisions. They equaled US in 2006, doubled US by 2013. And still growing despite the little fiction story developed for the propaganda that they are #oing a damn thing at all to reduce emmisions.

Even the recent announcement that they are going to all electric cars actually only means they are going to run their cars and transportation on coal.

They'll just send the exhaust to California via the natural jet stream and save money from using petroleum and vehicle emission standards.
k***@gmail.com
2018-11-25 00:04:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"":The United States already warmed on average 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the
Post by Unum
past century and will warm at least 3 more degrees by 2100 unless fossil fuel
use is dramatically curtailed, scientists from more than a dozen federal
agencies concluded in their latest in-depth assessment. ...
""1.8F over past century""

This is a blatant lie. When Hansen got caught doing a double correction with US temperatures around 2006, this changed the status betweeen the 30s and present of being warmer. Of course the error was in favor of warming. The charlatan and fraudist kept his job and blamed it on problems with Y2K.

Both he and NASA had to admit to the error.

The point is that the raw data shows the temperatures of the thirties warmer than present. With corrections they are about the same so much that the unwarrented double correction which changed things only tenths of a degree or hundreths, changed the status of the thirties with the status of recent yrs.

And also the whinig that recent yrs are the warmest.

THERE IS NO 1.8F INCREASE OF US TEMPERATURES OVER LAST HUNDRED YRS. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE AND PROPAGANDA DEVELOPED AND PROMOTED BY THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS CRIME AND SHOULD BE ADDRESED AS SUCH. AND WILL BE WHEN IT FINALLY ENDS UP IN PROPER COURRT.
Wally W.
2018-11-25 05:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 19:37:16 -0600, Unum wrote:

<who cares what he wrote ... if he wrote any of it and didn't merely
parrot it with a copy and paste>

How accurate were previous predictions of warming?

Why does Unum think this one is any better?
Loading...