Global Warming HOAX Unravels

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
I refuse to read your post.

I've been doing that to your posts for a while.

"Cigarettes are good bla bla bla"
"I'm being paid bla bla bla"

Some might be fooled with carbon credits but no one at this point is stupid enough to get fooled with cigarettes being good.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In a previous thread, I provided you with proof that the Medieval Warming Period was not a regional anomally, mainly affecting northern hemisphere land masses adjoining the Atlantic Ocean.

The description of MWP as a regional anomally is a central plank of the global warming crowd because it is known that the MWP was warmer than current temperatures.

I provided you witha link to a peer-reviewed study of ocean life forms that showed that both the MWP and the Little Ice Age were relected in the pacific ocean and the antartic ocean.

You decided not to respond to it!

So when yyou are given scientific evidence, of the caliber you demand, you ignore it. Then you bang on about private corporations being trust-worthy or not (as if the government is sooooo trust-worthy).

Tired of Control Frreaks

I'm pretty sure I missed it, because that post doesn't sound familiar. Tell you what. How about posting a link to that post so I can go read it and then respond to it?

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Metallicus

Hoax would mean that hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are all together trying to fool us... that's impossible. And Mike Adams is a charlatan, as shown by another member.

Whether it is natural or man made global warming is happening:

From Noaa

Um no it would not need that many and if you check the facts that was a made up line of BS on your part. Need to support such claims so we can see who really is this way and who among the original Warmest are now against the conclusions.

Read this article to see who the real deniers of truth are and what they do when asked to debate the subject with some of the Experts in Climate who do wholeheartedly disagree with the lie being perpetrated on society.

www.forbes.com...

The problem with the global warming hoax is the main solution brought up by the same people who created the problems : Carbon credits, carbon tax, carbon whatever.

They are purposely pointing the wrong factor because they clearly don't want to change their ways, they don't want to stop killing the earth with pollution.

I really don't give a damn if humans are the reason for "global warming", we shouldn't be looking for who to blame. We are all in this together. We need to stop polluting first and second, adjust to whatever earth's climate is.

a reply to: FlySolo

I know. We should be beyond discussing the legitimacy of the science. We should be discussing solutions. It's actually mind boggling how the go to response about denying AGW is to complain about carbon credits. Well of course you don't like them, they are a democrat answer to global warming. If you'd bother to get with the program, then maybe you can offer a Republican approved answer to global warming! Sheesh!

originally posted by: theMediator
The problem with the global warming hoax is the main solution brought up by the same people who created the problems : Carbon credits, carbon tax, carbon whatever.

They are purposely pointing the wrong factor because they clearly don't want to change their ways, they don't want to stop killing the earth with pollution.

I really don't give a damn if humans are the reason for "global warming", we shouldn't be looking for who to blame. We are all in this together. We need to stop polluting first and second, adjust to whatever earth's climate is.

Scientists have been studying Global Warming for over 100 years now. They've been sounding the alarms since the 50's or 60's and it wasn't until the 90's that politicians really started to jump on board. Do not reinvent history and pretend like politicians pitched a solution to a problem they invented.

a reply to: Metallicus

I find it kind of ironic that you would post this thread the day after last night's airing of "Racing Extinction." Which by the way, was epic and should have been an "eye opener" for everyone who watched.

Even if global temperatures hadn't gone up even one degree, there are numerous other disastrous consequences directly related to dumping excess amounts of carbon and other pollutants into the environment.

Things like acid rain and ocean acidification are directly attributable to air pollution and have the potential to literally kill most, if not all, life in our oceans. Not to mention, the more obvious respiratory affects that airborne pollutants have on humans.

There are plenty of reasons to be supportive of measures that would limit these pollutants, even if it weren't a major cause of climate change.

Make no mistake about it, I think your entire OP is pure bunk and I agree with the other poster regarding the flakiness of your source.

That being said, IMO the single biggest thing humanity could do to improve our existence on this planet, would be to quit burning fossil fuels for energy.

It's better for our health, it's better for the health of our oceans and all life within them and it eliminates what is probably the single biggest root cause of terrorism today.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: CornShucker

Thank you for that but I am doing a nursing research right now so I know how peer reviewed articles work. There's lot of truth in that article but I disagree with your statement because scientists would make so much more money by proving others were wrong, by proving with clear evidence they had the right idea/theory. Plus there are too many people involved to be a hoax, we are talking hundreds of thousands of people in too many countries. Sorry, but I think it's impossible.

There is too much evidence that proves global warming is real, from many different sources, even from oil companies.



a reply to: Wardaddy454

Were you so impressed with my graph you replied to me three times?

Yes, 1850 to 2006. I have other graphs, what would you like to see?

Maybe warming from the last ice age is real but there is now way we can raise the temperatures enough hurt this earth. The data had to be tweaked to make it look like there was an increase of barely 1 C since the Dustbowl.

I submit this as solid proof i am right.

climatecenter.fsu.edu...

originally posted by: CornShucker

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

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

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

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

Here is a kicker for all to think about from your post. THE WATER IN OUR ATMOSPHERE HAS SOME MAGNETIC PROPERTY'S. Since this is so, then the location of the Magnetic poles will have an affect on weather patterns. That Van der Waals energy we call it in the Chemistry world, is the slight magnetic field of any molecule or atom. It plays a part in combining some molecules and is considered weaker than the ionic binded molecules like salt. Therefore, water being H2O it has a magnetic attraction affect.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: swanne

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insignificant impact and you have seen these reports that support it in other threads and you still don't want to believe it do you?

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

Oh my lord. You people are so sad. If you don't learn to think for yourselves the global elite who just have stated over and over it is about money redistribution more than climate will get their way.

www.bloomberg.com...

junkscience.com...

Follow the money we say.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: swanne

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insignificant impact and you have seen these reports that support it in other threads and you still don't want to believe it do you?

What are you talking about?

originally posted by: okrian
You will likely be slammed for posting that Global Warming is a Hoax (and rightly so). but more to the point, you should be slammed for posting an article from Natural News, written by Mike Adams who is a raging conspiracy nutbag and in no way a climate scientist of any kind. I may even agree with some of the things he is skeptical about, but as a source... come on, you can do infinitely better.

Taking a step back from the OP for a second;
You do realize that you are on a Conspiracy website right? and that by just being here you are seen by most of the population to be exactly the same as the man you are condemning, right? That anything and everything that we talk about on here, from theories of what happened on 9/11, to energy conspiracies, to the NWO, literally EVERYTHING we talk about on these boards qualifies us for the exact same title you so willingly toss around.

Back on Topic;
Does climate change exist? - YES! It has been shown (and really anyone who looks outside can tell) that the world goes through cycles on hotter and colder weather, whether it be from season to season or over a longer scale like since the last ice age, Climate change certainly exists.
Do Humans have much/if any impact on climate change? Yes! It has been proven time and again that Humans do have an impact on the climate of the planet, be it from the toxins we pump into the air daily, or the garbage we leave sitting almost everywhere, we have an effect.
Finally, How much do we REALLY affect our Climate? Uncertain (but likely less than we are being lead to believe). Without unbiased data (and unbiased scientists to interpret it) it is impossible to say 100% one way or the other.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

I have better sources that paint that guy as a nutbag...

That "paint" that guy as a nutbag? Okay. Artists can do lots of amazing things... some comes from reality... some comes from imagination... most art is a combination of both. And we can both find lots of sources that say completely contradictory things, eh? But here's the thing: Science isn't defined by consensus....

...and climate change is real...

Yes, I do believe those are called "seasons," among other things, like the little ice age. Climate does indeed change. But that's not the issue, is it? The issue is what -- if any -- impact mankind has on climate and weather, and we both know that neither of us knows. You -- and anyone -- can declare it all you want, but claiming to know as fact what cannot be known doesn't convince me.

...but then again you were looking for something to confirm your bias that agw is a hoax right?

Nope. See above... why look for something to confirm what I already know cannot be known? Neither yea or nay. What I do know is that these climate summit in Paris is creating a H U G E and unnecessary carbon footprint which is supposedly the very thing they're trying to prevent... so if manmade global warming is real, these sure aren't the folks to fix it!

PS: he wasn't right about anti-vaxing science.

Which I never said... Anti-vaxing science? I don't even know what that means!!! I do, however, know that he warned us about forced vaccinations, and California proved him right.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: swanne

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insignificant impact and you have seen these reports that support it in other threads and you still don't want to believe it do you?

What are you talking about?

That it is not cool to ignore solid evidence from solid scientist like the example after example you have had to view from sources provided to you in these forums. Real Scientist's who ARE able to argue against your stance on this have been used in examples that are greater than the amount of CO2 we actually have in the atmospheric gases at this point in time. People such as I who are professionals in this field are being hurt by this DISTORTION of the truth for profit of those who want to foist this absolute lie upon us that we have tried our best to inform you of WITH FACTS backed with sources, i might add.
Here is ANOTHER former IPCC warmist member with her take on it.

judithcurry.com...

IF YOU will just think this through you WILL see what i have been saying for quite some time now, IS TRUE. I expect you of all people to try to read up on why we are saying these things and so easily are able to support our claims.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Yes, I do believe those are called "seasons," among other things, like the little ice age. Climate does indeed change. But that's not the issue, is it? The issue is what -- if any -- impact mankind has on climate and weather, and we both know that neither of us knows. You -- and anyone -- can declare it all you want, but claiming to know as fact what cannot be known doesn't convince me.

YOU may not know, but that doesn't mean that I don't know or that the answer is unknowable. What makes you think it is unknowable exactly? Please explain the exact flaws in the science that makes this unknowable. I'm really interested because all the evidence I've looked at says that the correlation is there so it can be known.

Nope. See above... why look for something to confirm what I already know cannot be known? Neither yea or nay. What I do know is that these climate summit in Paris is creating a H U G E and unnecessary carbon footprint which is supposedly the very thing they're trying to prevent... so if manmade global warming is real, these sure aren't the folks to fix it!

Because it is confirmation bias to assume that something is unknowable then refuse to seek an answer to it based on that assumption. The politicians in paris had to get to paris by SOME measure, and unfortunately all those measure create carbon footprints. Did you expect them to swim to paris or something? Doing something about climate change doesn't mean dropping all carbon producing technology overnight. We have to slowly adapt to it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They've been sounding the alarms since the 50's or 60's and it wasn't until the 90's that politicians really started to jump on board. Do not reinvent history and pretend like politicians pitched a solution to a problem they invented.

Please. I was there. No one was talking about global warming in the '70s...

1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

Since we need trees to clean the air, it's probably not helping with corporations clear cutting the woods and chopping down the rain forests. Any studies on the impact of their hand in this? They might not be producing a lot of co2, but their doing a fair job of killing off the solution to it.

And this from two years back should resonate with people who seek to know the truth. Cover the lack of proof the earth is catastrophically warming is my paraphrasing of this article. Quotes from people in the know help clue us in to what is going on with the politicized scientists.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: Justoneman
That it is not cool to ignore solid evidence from solid scientist like the example after example you have had to view from sources provided to you in these forums.

They have? Every time I ask for evidence I usually get ignored and have people start talking about politics instead.

Real Scientist's who ARE able to argue against your stance on this have been used in examples that pale in comparison to the amount of CO2 we actually have in the atmospheric gases at this point in time.

Real scientists? Are they climatologists? Or are they just "scientists"? Because scientist encompasses a VERY broad expanse of intellectual disciplines.

People such as I who are professionals in this field are being hurt by this DISTORTION of the truth for profit of those who want to foist this absolute lie upon us that we have tried our best to inform you of WITH FACTS backed with sources, i might add.

Professional in what field? The oil field?

Here is ANOTHER former IPCC warmist member with her take on it.

judithcurry.com...

IF YOU will just think this through you WILL see what i have been saying for quite some time now, IS TRUE. I expect you of all people to try to read up on why we are saying these things and so easily are able to support our claims.

You realize that you are cherry picking information from this source right?

One possible explanation for the discrepancy is that forced and internal variation might combine differently in observations than in models. For example, the forced trends in models are modulated up and down by simulated sequences of ENSO events, which are not expected to coincide with the observed sequence of such events. For this reason the moderating influence on global warming that arises from the decay of the 1998 El Niño event does not occur in the models at that time. Thus we employ here an established technique to estimate the impact of ENSO on global mean temperature, and to incorporate the effects of dynamically induced atmospheric variability and major explosive volcanic eruptions. Although these three natural variations account for some differences between simulated and observed global warming, these differences do not substantively change our conclusion that observed and simulated global warming are not in agreement over the past two decades. Another source of internal climate variability that may contribute to the inconsistency is the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). However, this is difficult to assess as the observed and simulated variations in global temperature that are associated with the AMO seem to be dominated by a large and concurrent signal of presumed anthropogenic origin. It is worth noting that in any case the AMO has not driven cooling over the past 20 years.

Another possible driver of the difference between observed and simulated global warming is increasing stratospheric aerosol concentrations. Other factors that contribute to the discrepancy could include a missing decrease in stratospheric water vapour, errors in aerosol forcing in the CMIP5 models, a bias in the prescribed solar irradiance trend, the possibility that the transient climate sensitivity of the CMIP5 models could be on average too high or a possible unusual episode of internal climate variability not considered above. Ultimately the causes of this inconsistency will only be understood after careful comparison of simulated internal climate variability and climate model forcings with observations from the past two decades, and by waiting to see how global temperature responds over the coming decades.

Judith Currey is a Climatologist that is obsessed with something called the "Uncertaintiy Monster". I wasn't sure what it was so I looked up this paper she wrote on it.

Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster

Though it should be noted that Judith Currey isn't AGAINST AGW like you are trying to pretend she is. Again you were cherry picking information to suit your narrative.