Major Math Error Puts Widely-Cited Global Warming Study On Ice

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: yuppa

can you elaborate on 2032 and the breakaways , what is going to happen then ?
thanks yuppa

Its the year they leave for deep space leaving all of us who are not worthy behind to be controlled by our governments and to be left alone by aliens instead of visited anymore.

Thats it. an it will be a spectacle i was told.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


You can see what's happening in the circulation of the , polar vortex, which I guess cause the jet streams, if they get a wobble on... the artic air can go as far south as the Sahara desert, hence the snow there the last couple of years, but on the other side of the wobble the tropical air can get as far up as Alaska. If the solar minimum gets going, and the vortex gets really out of whack, then I would guess the air in the tropics is a bit cooler , that's why Mammoths in Siberia froze, as a corridor of arctic air stayed for a while and froze everything, then when the snow stayed the albedo effect kept it cold. If this happens on a place the size of Siberia , its enough to cool the whole latitude down. The Ocean currents which are not as quick as the winds keep places like Alaska ice free , as the winds come off the Ocean in that region. Its only my opinion, but this winter in Britain could be nasty, if the present trend continues.

Very interesting forecast by the experts that have never happened. I am at a stage where I do believe it is necessary for anyone to not take the funded experts at their word. youtu.be...

a reply to: yuppa

Oh , how nice of them eh!

sounds interesting I will do some reading if I can find anything on it!

Any idea where they are headed ,or was the kepler extra solar planet search a part of this ?

a reply to: burntheships

Well , air pollution is one thing, we are combating what we put out into the world !
but we are also cutting down a lot of the natural carbon scrubbers / CO2 scrubbers and oxygen generation
by deforestation !

We cut down more than we plant , and we out put more than the biofield can clean!

We need more forests to scrub and clean our air

we cant continue cutting down the lungs of our world without them we will end up living in giant glass domes because the air is so toxic we cant breath it without apparatus and we cant go outside in the rain as its so acidic it will melt through any clothing

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: burntheships

Well , air pollution is one thing, we are combating what we put out into the world !
but we are also cutting down a lot of the natural carbon scrubbers / CO2 scrubbers and oxygen generation
by deforestation !

We cut down more than we plant , and we out put more than the biofield can clean!

We need more forests to scrub and clean our air

we cant continue cutting down the lungs of our world without them we will end up living in giant glass domes because the air is so toxic we cant breath it without apparatus and we cant go outside in the rain as its so acidic it will melt through any clothing

U.S. Judge stops work on Keystone XL pipeline to 'again' review environmental impact.

Neil Swart, a PhD student in my lab, and I -- undertook to measure the likely impact of oil sands development upon world climate. On September 28, we submitted the results of our analysis for publication and after five months working its way through the peer review paper, the final article appeared in Nature Climate Change on Sunday.

We received no funding for this researchText.

----------

The atmosphere has traditionally been viewed as an unregulated dumping ground. There is no cost associated with emitting greenhouse gases.

The global North bears most of the responsibility for the current anthropogenic carbon content of the atmosphere. Neil Swart

www.huffingtonpost.ca...

climate.uvic.ca...

In relation to coal plants emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect, it's an odd and interesting study and somewhat complex; the heat we generate can also have an effect on the climate, and moreso.

That’s the conclusion of a Carnegie Institution for Science study published Tuesday that shows two things: Emissions from burning a lump of coal or a gallon of gas has an effect on the climate 100,000 times greater than the heat given off by burning the fossil fuel itself. And, the heat trapped by those emissions can be felt within just a few months of the fuel being burned. Burning fossil fuels is the globe’s biggest source of human-caused greenhouse gases and the primary cause of climate change.

www.scientificamerican.com...

It looks like coal consumption worldwide has increased in India and china, but decreased in the U.S. - but U.S. is still not far behind India.

www.statista.com...

a reply to: InTheLight

You know, it took a long, long time for the scientific community to admit the carbon credit scam, was in fact a scam intended to produce huge profits for those corrupt individuals involved. It has happened now and it's clear the damage it did to the reputations of those who gladly accepted it wrapped up in a blanket of more research funding.

The only way we are ever going to see reliable, honest science in this now is to remove money from the equation.

It is heartening to see that the topic of this thread was admitted too by those who produced the bad science, but that happened only after being exposed. It would have never happened if not challenged as fear leads to more money and they clearly know that.

Science is no less prone to fraud than any other profession and those in science are just as likely to lie for money as any other segment of society. Bad actors like Gore and the Chicago bunch are always going to circle like vultures looking for opportunities to use bad science to enrich themselves. They know that likely their own involvement wont be exposed until long after they are dead an buried. History will not look kindly on this scam.

There is no looming catastrophe in the works. There is only a need for us to adapt and we humans are good at that, when not led by the nose by bad science, done to generate funding and then used by politicians and scammers for their ends. Sure climate change is real, but it happens so slowly as it always has, we can easily adapt if we approach it honestly. We adapted when we were still running around in animal skins hunting and gathering and can adapt even easier now.

a reply to: watchitburn

It is when I have lived through 50+ local winters as you call it.

Drastic changes in the insects & plants over the last few years.

China plans a 25% growth in coal fired power plants that pollution doesn't stay floating over China or is that how you think it works.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Sure we can adapt as an intelligent species on this planet, what about wildlife and ecosystems, who is looking after that?

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Blaine91555

Sure we can adapt as an intelligent species on this planet, what about wildlife and ecosystems, who is looking after that?

Something to consider: 30 million years ago (plus or minus a few years) the Earth was Ice FREE ! Turtles and Alligators (fossil record) thrived in what is now called the arctic and Siberia.. The earth was around 8 degrees C warmer back then (ocean core records)..Life has a way of finding ways to survive.. If the world warms there will be more critters everywhere .. exactly opposite if it cools again.

I think we can agree that the destruction of habitat to build another parking lot is not good stewardship for the planet and eventually us as a species .

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Blaine91555

Sure we can adapt as an intelligent species on this planet, what about wildlife and ecosystems, who is looking after that?

Something to consider: 30 million years ago (plus or minus a few years) the Earth was Ice FREE ! Turtles and Alligators (fossil record) thrived in what is now called the arctic and Siberia.. The earth was around 8 degrees C warmer back then (ocean core records)..Life has a way of finding ways to survive.. If the world warms there will be more critters everywhere .. exactly opposite if it cools again.

I think we can agree that the destruction of habitat to build another parking lot is not good stewardship for the planet and eventually us as a species .

And so adaptation begins again.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: yuppa

Oh , how nice of them eh!

sounds interesting I will do some reading if I can find anything on it!

Any idea where they are headed ,or was the kepler extra solar planet search a part of this ?

Im sorry but i am not privy to the destination as of yet,but all i know is deep space where the other pillars of humanity that came before reside. Like the previous incarnation that inhabited mars.

a reply to: 727Sky

You do realize that Global Warming is still happening, right? This specific report before the math error was found pointed to a worst case scenario, after the error was corrected the planet is still warming but just not the worst case scenario.

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Blaine91555

Sure we can adapt as an intelligent species on this planet, what about wildlife and ecosystems, who is looking after that?

Something to consider: 30 million years ago (plus or minus a few years) the Earth was Ice FREE ! Turtles and Alligators (fossil record) thrived in what is now called the arctic and Siberia.. The earth was around 8 degrees C warmer back then (ocean core records)..Life has a way of finding ways to survive.. If the world warms there will be more critters everywhere .. exactly opposite if it cools again.

I think we can agree that the destruction of habitat to build another parking lot is not good stewardship for the planet and eventually us as a species .

The climate is changing too rapidly to allow the mechanisms of evolution to help life adapt to the changing earth. Sure there used to not be ice in the artic but that change took place over eons, not 100-200 years.

a reply to: BlackJackal

Yes I feel all life on Earth will probably be gone in a few years.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Blaine91555

Sure we can adapt as an intelligent species on this planet, what about wildlife and ecosystems, who is looking after that?

Something to consider: 30 million years ago (plus or minus a few years) the Earth was Ice FREE ! Turtles and Alligators (fossil record) thrived in what is now called the arctic and Siberia.. The earth was around 8 degrees C warmer back then (ocean core records)..Life has a way of finding ways to survive.. If the world warms there will be more critters everywhere .. exactly opposite if it cools again.

I think we can agree that the destruction of habitat to build another parking lot is not good stewardship for the planet and eventually us as a species .

The climate is changing too rapidly to allow the mechanisms of evolution to help life adapt to the changing earth. Sure there used to not be ice in the artic but that change took place over eons, not 100-200 years.

If you care to look we are cooler than 8000 and 2000 years ago. Ooops.. I think there was another period of around 5000 years; sorry been a long time since I looked.. It is all cycles.. you have to look at the actual temp records over history and not take the alarmist word for just about anything.. At 410 PPM of CO2 (plant food) the yield of some crops are already up 35% .. You scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere down to around 150 PPM and all plants die along with us because there is no food.. Talk to your plant close up and yes it likes your CO2

New York Times caught in alarmist fraud/scam again which is typical for the alarmist with a NWO agenda youtu.be...

The other side of the argument this and the next few winters are going to be record breakers as far as cold, snow and ice. We do not have long to wait to find out..

It really boils down to this.

University scientists get grants for projects. Usually, the application for the grant requires a detailed explanation of what they intend to study. Money is granted then based on that expectation.

I've worked at a campus that is doing an ongoing a major climate change study. I've ate lunch with the staff doing it.

The grants are made expecting the results to show that climate change is real AND accelerating. That's why the money was granted. That's what the scientists in charge of granting out the money want.

Does anyone really expect these scientists, who are being paid to show that climate change in fact exists, to suddenly come forward and say "Hey, what'a ya know, there isn't any!!" when their entire livelihood (AND the livelihood of thousands of others) rests on climate change being real?

Come on. Seriously.

Fred..

a reply to: fredrodgers1960

And it happens on both ends of the spectrum.

We really, really need to change the way science is conducted. The heart of science is not knowing and letting the evidence show us the way. Unfortunately, we are at a point where money has become more important than science, and thus money leads science. Those who favor Global Warming fund scientists who will say that Global Warming is real, while those who oppose Global Warming fund scientists who will say the opposite.

And one has to remember that scientists, like engineers, don't use those highfalutin' words just because they are needed... they also use them to make themselves look smart and confuse the audience. Most concepts are simply not as hard as they appear, as long as one has an open mind. I have had post-grad professors who prided themselves on confusing an audience of scientists and engineers. "Once you have everyone on the brink of confusion, that is when you change the variables!" I have boiled that concept down to one my "Rules of Engineering": "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bulls**t."

And so most people are caught in the middle, not really knowing which way to go. So they pick a team. Yay, team!

Someone will now come along, after your (excellent) post, and claim that the money is the reason there are "deniers." After all, Big Oil is obviously funding these "denier" scientists, right? What they always fail to understand is that while their position is correct, they are ignoring the other side... there is as much (if not more) money to be made from Global Warming being true as there is it being false.

And so the argument continues with neither side really knowing the answer... because we don't really care what the real answer is. We all care about the money our answer will make.

TheRedneck

a reply to: InTheLight

Who was looking after them before humans arrived on the scene?

Exaggeration and hysterics won't solve any issues and the activists seem to hurt causes more than help them.

Just in my life we have seen some really dishonest stuff surrounding environmental issues, which makes people close their eyes to it, when you have no idea what is and is not real.

Look at how they used the Bald Eagle, the American symbol in a dishonest way. People noticed, in particular if like me you lived in an area in Idaho back then, where there were more eagles locally than was claimed to exist in the entire lower 48 states. I see why they picked that bird, but it made it no less of a lie. They were not and are not endangered and never have been.

Everyone wants a clean environment, but if you don't walk in lock step with the radicals, you get labeled as not caring. The old if you don't do as we say right now, we will call you nasty names and lie about you trick attributed often to Saul Alinsky.

When is the last time you heard an activist mention there is more standing timber now than when the Pilgrims showed up. That the deer herds are larger now than ever? That the Black Bears have been over protected? Neither side is exactly honest and often the attacks are directed at the wrong people.

What can we do about China? What can we do about that whole area south of China that's an environmental disaster? Bomb them, take them over? What about the pollution nightmare in India? Why is it that the places like the US where we have seen steady improvement are put on the hot seat? It's irrational and counterproductive.

To fix problems takes money. Lot's of money. Financially crippling ourselves out of panic would make it worse. Radicals either are illiterate to that or dishonest and I think it's often the later.

People like Gore and whole carbon credit scam bunch are not the environmentalists friends, anymore than the nut jobs who spike trees or try and shut down companies are. If anything they slow it down.

How did California not allowing dead tree's, dead fall and underbrush to be cleared work out? They did it to pander for environmentalists votes and now look at what's left or will be left. How do you think that environment and those animals living in it are doing? Pretending those fires are out of control due to climate change won't make it true. Bad forest management is bad forest management.

A friend is right now just sitting and waiting for his house to burn in Malibu. I've seen the area around him and they let the tinder get worse and worse and worse for years due to bad actions taken to pander for votes. If properly managed it would have been small fires that could have been dealt with, but no.............

Bad science corrupted by politics nets bad results.

originally posted by: The GUT
All the globalist lies are falling apart. They're either gonna have to shut the internet down or brainwash the next generation through propagandized academia...oh...wait a minute...

If true, then we have hit the crossroads where by truly "evil prevails because good people do nothing".

In your case, it is not that all good people have stood by and done nothing. Keep on the path of seeking the truth. I agree with you Gut.