The 10 Top Inconvenient Truths About the Climate Change Hoax

[bigbadjohn45]

The 10 Top Inconvenient Truths About the Climate Change Hoax

September 23, 2014 By TPNN Staff


Global Warming Climate Change high priests Barack Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore, as well as all Democrats have been aggressively pushing the junk science, all as a deceptive attempt to feed their political greed and give government more control over our lives.

Largely ignored by the leftstream media is the fact that NOAA/NASA altered US temperatures showing a warming trend the last 130 years where none existed. This information is part of a larger set of data, proving that the climate change “experts” are advocates, not objective, thriving on a welfare system of research dependent on making global climate change a threat.


Scientists for years have been colluding with government regulators to exact control over our economic system, attempting to replace capitalism with communism/socialism through climate change nonsense, preying on weak-minded Democrats, liberals, and progressives.
RELATED: It’s About the Money, Not the Climate

It is important to understand a few things (see supporting documentation below list):

1. The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

2. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

3. Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause climate change, and we cannot stop it.

4. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

5. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

6. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

7. When using unaltered historical NOAA/NASA data, there has been no warming trend the last 130 years.

8. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat.

9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.

10. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a mental disorder.

Despite the fact that CO2 levels have continued to increase, there has been no global warming for nearly two decades, the communist believers in the false religion formerly known as “global warming,” but now referred to as “climate change” (the climate has ALWAYS changed, fyi), these fanatical evangelists deny the fact there is no science proving manmade global warming.

After multiple accounts of proven scientific fraud, such as ClimateGate I and ClimateGate II, proving that taxpayer-bilking scientists doctored data to make it look like global warming existed when there was none, the sycophantic worshiping of this manmade religion can only be attributed to a serious mental condition.

RELATED: Weather Channel Founder Explains the History of the Global Warming Hoax

And Here’s the Proof:

Plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. (Reference: John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama)

All of southern Greenland and most of the northern part were ice-free during the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in. Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate. (Reference: University of Copenhagen (2007, July 5). Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com)

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95%of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes(28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor). (Reference: Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,)

RELATED: VIDEO: Hypocrite Al Gore Leaves Climate March in Suburban SUV

April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling. This cooling was supposed to put us into another ice age.

An early indication that the Sun’s variability in ways other than total output had something to do with climate was the “Maunder Minimum“. The researcher Maunder found that during this cold period between 1645-1715 there was very little sunspot activity, and this discovery led to the naming of the phenomenon after him. It suggested that solar activity was coupled to climate and led to tabulations of sunspot number as an indication of solar activity. Even more compelling is the fact that there exists a well-documented Roman Warm period from the time of the Roman Caesars, and a Medieval Warm Period, both of which correlate with solar activity, but certainly can have nothing whatever to do with CO2 produced by any human industrial activities. Solar activity is now expected to decrease in a 30-year cycle. (reference: : Dr. Kelvin Kemm, engineering news)

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. the laws of physics don’t seem to allow CO2 it’s currently assumed place as a significant “greenhouse gas” based on present concentrations. if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won’t matter a bit. (Reference: The Middlebury Community Network 2008)

RELATED: VIDEO: ‘Do You Agree with Obama’s Global Warming Alarmism?’ Watch What Dem-Invited Witnesses Say

For remainder of article, please click here: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/23/the-10-top-inconvenient-truths-about-the-climate-change-hoax/

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, I saw this post on another forum and thought it pretty much sums up the reason for the global warming/climate change craze that we have today.

I had my 28-year old nephew in town. He works at a kiosk at the mini mall in his tiny little Midwest town, and he being the Einstein that he is, insists that the United States keeps emitting bad stuff into our environment which is ruining the planet all because of those darn Republicans. A 5-minute stump speech is all these young dummies have. There are two generations of brain dead, easily brainwashed young people out there in their 20's, 30's and 40's who believe this stuff hook line and sinker. It's an issue to them and that is the problem we have in this country. We are breeding self-centered morons who vote for self-centered morons because of issues like this. It doesn't matter that half the country know it's a hoax and scam and a non-issue. These young dopes think otherwise, it's cool or something. This bonehead nephew and his older brother both voted for Obama twice because they thought it was cool and Obama was cool. One works at a mini mall and the other drives a delivery truck. They have 6 kids between them, and both their wives are as dumb as a door knob. How do you think those kids are going to think as they grow up? The commies have done what they set out to do, dumb down our population in the schools and you create a dummy class from within, and they have succeeded.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Flash, the post you copied pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? The "man-made global warming" hoax was perpetrated in its inception by big-government advocates whose goal has never been to "save the planet"; rather, to make government even bigger through higher taxes and redistribution of wealth. My most recent threads--both of which present scientific facts and evidence to debunk the hoax--is indisputable. However, we both realize that liberals cannot process logic and facts. It confuses their warped, depraved, perverted, Godless thinking.

Thanks for sharing, my good friend!

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Climate Change: Where is the Science?

Is it twice as likely that the Earth is cooling than that it is warming? That humans and fossil fuels have nothing, or everything to do with it, or somewhere in between? Or is it over 99% certain that anthropogenic carbon burning-induced warming is sweeping us to the apocalypse, with all other possibilities combined being less than one percent probable?

The only way to find out is through the most rigorous and critical application of the scientific method, from laboratory practice to public discourse. Anything less than that increases the risk that the 'solution' could be more catastrophic to humans than the results of climate change itself.

Let us examine what the climate change alarm community has done and how they have done it, and see if it qualifies as the rigorous and unimpeachable science that its proponents claim it is. We'll walk it back from results to first principles.

First, results. Nothing defines science so well in the popular mind than the predictive power of scientific theory. "If the conditions, materials and/or forces A, B, C, and D come together in such-and-such a way, then the outcome WILL BE 6.7294874X. If variables P, Q, and R are substituted for A, C, and D, then the outcome will be 2.1 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol in combustion." Awesome.

So, how is that predictive power working out so far? And more to the point, what effect have those results had on the public's confidence in the supposedly infallible science and scientists? In 1999 they said that warming would wipe out the Great Barrier Reef. In 2000 they said that Britain would no longer see snow during winter. In 2001 they predicted starvation from failing grain crops in India. From 2003 to 2005 they concluded that the drought then occurring in Australia would be permanent and Sydney dwellers would have nothing to drink. In 2006 they predicted unprecedented severe cyclones and hurricanes. In 2008 they said that by 2013 there would be no more arctic ice cap; that we would be swimming with the otters at the North Pole.

None of these predictions have come to pass. The Reef is still there, as is the arctic ice. Children make more snowmen than ever in Britain and the rains returned to Australia with a vengeance. Thanks to the instantaneous and ubiquitous communications made possible by our smartphones and social networking, there is much greater awareness of the severe weather events that do occur than there was before, but in absolute terms, such events are neither more frequent nor more severe than they have always been.

The climate computer models have demonstrated themselves to have no reliable predictive power. The mother of all predictions, that global warming was inexorable, has been debunked by the past seventeen years of actual measurement, sending the climate change community into a mad scramble to explain it, deny it, 'correct' the earlier data, explain why it doesn't disprove their theories, or explain it away.

Even so, none of this proves that global warming isn't happening or won't happen, or that excess carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning won't send us over the brink, right? Of course not -- how do you prove a negative? But the persistence of politicians with a vested interest insisting that Climate Change is a greater threat to humanity than ISIS, Iran, North Korea, unemployment, burning American cities and negative economic growth combined, in spite of the failures of any of the predictions to come true, suggests that something is wrong at a deeper level with the way we are practicing and discussing science.

Scientists, strictly defined, should have no agenda whatsoever other than the discovery of truth; truth of which no human being is the ultimate arbiter, but only Nature. Albert Einstein famously did not want his theory of Relativity accepted until its predictive power had been proven. Scientists who have come to believe that a certain theory is closer to the truth than any known alternatives have the right, indeed the duty, to defend that theory against any and all challenges. But the true scientist must always, without exception, maintain intellectual honesty and be prepared to abandon a theory if its predictive power cannot explain empirical data that does not fit and/or when a rival theory that seems to do a better job of explaining the subject phenomena (often in simpler terms) arises. Skepticism and openness to change and to challenge is the fundamentalist creed of the true scientist.

A theory that does not contain within it the terms of its own falsification is not a valid theory. If the planet Mercury's orbit did not vary by the number of degrees that Einstein's theory said it would, then Relativity would be unproven and Albert would have had to admit failure, as he indicated he would be willing to do. A weasel-word term like Climate Change, where any drought and any flood, any heat wave or cold wave, any storm or any clear sky, any melting or freezing, anywhere at any time, can be cited as evidence of industrial humans' culpability, and there is no defined criteria that would exculpate us, is not a valid theory; it is meaningless Catch-22 Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose political propaganda.

The climate change alarm scientists have lost credibility because too many of them have behaved not as scientists but as politicians. They will regain the trust of the people when they rediscover their principles and comport themselves accordingly, to wit:

• They debate each other honestly and respectfully, including the skeptics and 'deniers', with no recourse to ad hominem attacks or defamation lawsuits.
• Instead of firing, defunding and/or persecuting scientists with whom they disagree, they advocate for funding for research into alternate theories by those same rival scientists on a comparable scale as their own results-oriented research.
• They express their honest scientific opinions in terms of relative probabilities. '100% certainty' in a matter as complex as the entire Earth's climate for the next hundred years should be looked upon with the utmost suspicion.
• They rebuke any and all meteorologists or news readers who ascribe any significance whatsoever to transient local weather events as proof, or even evidence, of anthropomorphic climate change.
• They discontinue all scare tactics and sensationalism, and stick to objective reporting of measurement and rational hypotheses.
• They discontinue hiding behind consensus or authority, and instead demonstrate the courage of their facts, logic, and the track record of their predictions over the long term.
• They stop papering over the differences of opinion within the alarm community in order to present a unified public front; keep the discussion transparent.
• They publicly disclaim any among them who make anti-scientific claims such as that "the debate is over" or "the science is settled". Yes, that means Al Gore and anyone else. Anyone asserting such a preposterous thing should take the statement to its logical conclusion by resigning his or her position and/or returning any unspent research grant money and forswearing any continuance of the same. If the world is round not flat, we don't need to fund research and deploy hardware to ascertain the shape of the earth. If the debate is over, then go home.

In short, we will restore to them the trust and respect to which science and scientists aspire when they demonstrate that they are worthy of it.

Lay persons are easily intimidated from taking on scientists on their turf. But when supposed scientists behave anti-scientifically and demand that we surrender our civil liberties, our private property rights and our prosperity, that's our turf. Giving up the cheapest and most plentiful energy sources available (fossil fuels and nuclear, the latter which does not contribute to greenhouse gasses) can cause a great deal of poverty, hunger and death by exposure to the hostile elements of a poorly understood climate.

It doesn't take a PhD to know what science is and isn't; climate science as practiced by the IPCC, Al Gore and their fellow travelers does not qualify.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/climate_change_where_is_the_science.html

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, I realize our liberal brethren are very passionate about global warming/climate change but it would be nice if they could supply us with some facts as to the effects of climate change on earth, right now. And when I say facts, I mean scientific facts. I don't want someone to tell me some glacier is 10% less in size than it was 10 years ago and leave out that some other glacier 10 miles away is now 15% greater in size. I want facts, I want stats. One stat I do know is that the ocean levels were supposed to have risen by hundreds of feet and swallowed all of us up for the last 15 years but the facts are that the oceans have risen, possibly, a fraction of an inch or centimeter or not at all in the last 15 years. What happened to all the crazies in the 70s who said we were going to have another ice age? They went to global warming, and when that didn't work, now its "climate change," whatever that means. Kind of like "community organizer," whatever that means.

BBJ, when will the liberals figure it out? This is not that hard to understand. Liberals are being played and scammed. Just follow the money - oh that's right, it's not their money, so what do they care?

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Flash, per usual, your post is spot-on. There is absolutely no factual evidence/proof--whatsoever--of "man-made global warming," nor has there ever been. Their "evidence" has always consisted of "computer models" constructed with bogus "data" to achieve a desired outcome.

In fact, they can't even claim global warming at all (man-made or not)--in the past 18 years! Of course, liberals never allow facts, logic, and reason ruin a good argument, do they?