Global Warming? Climate Change? Debunking the hooey.

[Sinnerman]

There could be a dozen or three dozen things that are associated with climate change. Why bet all your cash on just one of them and then be forced to create graphs that kinda sorta show a relationship. You could be overlooking dozens of better theories.

Will all the crap that is gets mixed into the atmosphere, will it cause the earth to warm by one degree in the next thousand years or will it cause the earth to warm by 1000 degrees in the next 100 years? One seems sorta bad and the other seems sorts insignificant.

What caused climate change on earth 1000 years ago? CO2? SUV's? Volcanos? What was causing climate change on earth 10,000 years ago. CO2? The solar cycle? Volcanos? Cave men burning camp fires? What was causing climate change on Mars the last 100,000 years? Burning too many fossil fuels? Martian cave men building camp fires? If the earths climate has changed over and over, including before humans were around, who or what is to blame? And why would you need to blame anything. It could well be the way the earth has cycled from warm to cold and back to warm. Maybe we are being vain by taking credit for something we had no control over.

What is causing huge ice fields to get smaller, cause people to worry, and then suddenly grow many times larger? Why don't they do what Al Gore says they will do and disappear completely. Why aren't those climate models more accurate? Why do climate scientists get caught lying about research and hiding research and deleting data from their computers and actively smearing the reputations of other climate scientists? Why would they need to do any of that if they weren't involved in a hoax? Over 90% of college professors are liberals. Maybe that explains how we end up with so many dishonest climate scientists with agendas.

It really doesn't matter what I think causes anything? I'm not trying to convince people they need to be burdened with more taxes to fix a problem that may not exist, and if it does exist, the expensive attempt to fix it cannot possibly fix it. That is not my opinion. That is the opinion of the climate scientists. Nothing we could dream of doing will change whatever is happening to the climate. other than make it worse. Call me when China and India stop building coal fired power plants and adding a million people to the worlds population each week. Given a choice of doing nothing or doing something expensive that has no chance of altering the climate of the planet, I'd choose to keep my money and live out my life in a place where the air is clean and the temperature seems quite acceptable. You should do the same.

 

[Sinnerman]

Climate Change Hoax Exposed

October 13, 2013

• Censored portion of UN report leaked; says data exaggerated

By John Friend

Climate Change Hoax Exposed | American Free Press

The recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is comprised of an international group of scientists sponsored by the United Nations (UN), is extremely alarmist in nature, despite the fact that numerous top climate scientists have admitted that many of their “global warming” predictions were wrong or seriously exaggerated.

The 36-page summary report, issued to governments and world leaders last week, contends:

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The full 2,216-page report entitled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” “was accepted but not approved in detail,” whatever that means.

The summary report goes say that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that many of the changes “are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” The report also emphasizes that “human influence on the climate system is clear,” noting that “man-made climate change is almost certain,” according to a report by CNN.

Donate to us

Scientists working with the IPCC contend with a 95% certainty that human activity is to blame for the majority of the changes in the environment and climate, which they allege has led to rising temperatures and sea levels, warming of the oceans, loss of ice sheets, and shrinking glaciers. The report also warns that “man-made climate change” will also impact the intensity and size of storms, such as hurricanes and tornadoes.

The IPCC, along with many high profile politicians and international figures, have long been calling for a reduction in fossil fuel use and a limitation on so-called “green house gas emissions.” The report argues: “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” Last Friday, the UN Climate Panel met in Stockholm, Sweden to release and discuss the latest findings of the IPCC, and for the first time “formally embraced an upper limit on greenhouse gases,” The New York Times reported.

The mainstream mass media has hysterically publicized the latest findings of the IPCC without the slightest bit of skepticism or investigation. The dire predictions and ominous future outlined by the IPCC prompted one meteorologist to vow never to fly again. Eric Holthaus, who once covered the weather for The Wall Street Journal, also “decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and has considered having a vasectomy,” the UK’s Daily Mail reported.

Many scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.

“The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.

Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:

“Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60’s and 70’s. This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”

“The IPCC is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other environmental and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made climate change.”

“Bottom line, they don’t want to share resources with the unwashed masses,” Dr. Karlstrom concludes.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1324....zmHx0s5V.dpuf

 

[Sinnerman]

Here's a Wiki list that took me five seconds to find.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [16]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and Director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University[17]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[18][19][20]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)[21]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University[22]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soi science[23][24][25]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm[26]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[27]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [28]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee[29]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry[30]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[32]
Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[33][34]
Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg[35]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[36]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[37]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[38]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[39]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[40]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[41]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[42]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[43]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[44]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[45]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[46]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[47]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[48]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[49][50]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[51]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[52]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University[53]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[54][55]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[56]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[57]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[58][59][60]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[61]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[62]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[63]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[64]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[65]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[66]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[67]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[68]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[69][70]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[71]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[72]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[73]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[74]
Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[75]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[76]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [77]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[78]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[79]

.

 

[Sinnerman]

The Skeptics Case

Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists or The Data?

By Dr David M.W. Evans (republished here with permission, PDF link below)http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/2...skeptics-case/


We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message – here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

What the Government Climate Scientists Say

Figure 1: The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 3 = 3.3°C.i


The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.ii

Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models.iii The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.

What the Skeptics Say

Figure 2: The skeptic’s view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ≈ 0.6°C.iv

The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half.v The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable— it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.

What the Data Says

The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2even while they got more detailed with more computer power.

•How well have the climate models predicted the temperature?
•Does the data better support the climate models or the skeptic’s view?

Air Temperatures

One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the “father of global warming”:

Figure 3: Hansen’s predictionsvi to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellitesvii.

Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises.

In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased – which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions.


A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report:vii

Figure 4: Predictions of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.

It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

Ocean Temperatures

The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational.ix,x In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over three thousand Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world.

Figure 5: Climate model predictionsxi of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argoxii. The unit of the vertical axis is 1022 Joules (about 0.01°C).

The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.

Atmospheric Hotspot

The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot”.

The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory (see Figure 1). The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.

We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 70’s to the late 90’s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.xiii Here it is:

Figure 6: On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons.xiv On the right is what the climate models say was happening.xv The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.


In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification – the amplification shown in Figure 1 does not exist.xvi

Outgoing Radiation

The climate models predict that when the surface of the earth warms, less heat is radiated from the earth into space (on a weekly or monthly time scale). This is because, according to the theory, the warmer surface causes more evaporation and thus there is more heat-trapping water vapor. This is the heat-trapping mechanism that is responsible for the assumed amplification in Figure 1.

Satellites have been measuring the radiation emitted from the earth for the last two decades. A major study has linked the changes in temperature on the earth’s surface with the changes in the outgoing radiation. Here are the results:

Figure 7: Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical axis) against sea surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellites (upper left graph) and as “predicted” by 11 climate models (the other graphs).xvii Notice that the slope of the graphs for the climate models are opposite to the slope of the graph for the observed data.


This shows that in reality the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer. This is the opposite of what the climate models predict. This shows that the climate models trap heat too aggressively, and that their assumed amplification shown in Figure 1 does not exist.

Conclusions

All the data here is impeccably sourced—satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.xviii

The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin—it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic’s excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces – and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.

We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data:

The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases.

Therefore:
1.The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.
2.The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

The skeptical view is compatible with the data.

Some Political Points

The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media – have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the “debate” is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.

This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050, or it doesn’t.

Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree just about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?

 

[wolfwint]

They're changing alright...

Where’s global warming? Arctic ice cap grows

Dire forecasts of a summertime, ice-free Arctic have been abundant, from Al Gore to the BBC to Sierra Club Canada.
The reality? Big fail!

Blogger Steven Goddard at Real Science is citing information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, showing the Arctic ice mass, as of Sept. 7, is substantially bigger than it was in September 2012.

“Nobel Prize winning climate experts and journalists tell us that the Arctic is ice-free, because they are propagandists pushing an agenda, not actual scientists or journalists,” he writes.
In the past three years, he points out, the Arctic ice mass “has gained hundreds of miles … much of which is thick, multi-year ice.”

WND long has reported the predictions of an ice-free Arctic by scientists who believe mankind is causing global warming.
But in just last few winters, Cairo saw its first snow in 100 years. And Oregon, like several other states, reached its coldest temperature in 40 years. Chicago saw the coldest days ever recorded, and – as if to add finality to the trend – Antarctica reached the coldest temperature ever recorded anywhere on earth.

The holes in the theories that form the basis of ice-free Arctic forecasts are evident.

We have this year the warmest december since messuaring.

 

[Sinnerman]

Here are some of my concerns. I will try to explain at least some of my reasoning.

1. " it is extremely fast in the context of our planet history."

I don't believe it no matter how many times people keep saying it. Why, because I took the time to look at actual data and I discount what I am told when it contradicts direct observations. There are peer reviewed papers showing the Medieval warm period warmer or at least as warm as today, the run up to it looked similar. Temperatures rising out of the little ice age in the 1600's are continuing and we are in that period right now (rising temps). I have downloaded the HADCRUT data set and it is clear to me that the recent 1970-2000 heat up is no different than the 1910-1940 heat up. The "extremely" fast temperature rise was also present in the 1800s. If it were 1930 we would be undergoing a major heat up and the dust bowl droughts would be setting in. Clearly we could make all of the same claims we hear now. Hottest years on record, rising temperatures, droughts, floods, etc.. This was 1930. Nothing new is happening almost a century later.
So of course it is getting warmer. Of course we will see hottest years. The question is whether this is "extreme" based on historical precedent and I observe that it is not. I recommend studying data, all the data. See if what you believe makes sense.

2. “warming this fast does not end up well”
The Medieval warm period, warmer or at least as warm as today, is thought to have been a time of great prosperity. Crop yields are most likely higher. Let’s face it, if you want to see life on earth, head to the equator, not the poles.

3. “Certainly cause a mass extinction of species.. which will take millions of years to recover from”
Certainly??? Based on what evidence. Because Al Gore said so. The history of our planet is one of extinction. As far as I know these species don’t recover even in a million years. I don’t have the numbers but most of the species that have ever existed are now extinct. Ice ages are more likely to cause problems than our current interglacial period of prosperity. The Medieval warm period did not seem to cause a mass extinction.

4. “We know that our way of life can continue pretty much unchanged in a low carbon economy.”
Actually we don’t know this. In fact, the opposite is true. Look at the temperature history over the past 500K years. We are in an interglacial period not unlike the previous ones. When I look at the plots, it looks to me, on this time scale, that we are do to drop 10 degrees and go into a real ice age. Life will not be pretty much unchanged. Farm lands will be frozen, people will starve, freeze, migrate, etc. It will be ugly. Low carbon may get us there faster. Who knows.

See this reference. One of many talking about the Vostok ice data. http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebo...f_climate.html

" From this plot, it is clear that most of the last 420 thousand years (420 kyr) was spent in ice age. The brief periods when the record peaks above the zero line, the interglacials, typically lasted from a few thousand to perhaps twenty thousand years."

"These data should frighten you. All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up. Data such as these are what led us to state, in the Preface, that the next ice age is about to hit us, any millennium now. It does not take a detailed theory to make this prediction. We don’t necessarily know why the next ice age is imminent (at least on a geological time scale), but the pattern is unmistakable."

5. Is that "hysteria"? ("that" referring to AGW hysteria)
Most likely.

 

[Sirk]

Saw a news article today that is now claiming that greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to cool.

 

[Sinnerman]

 

[Fifipifi]

So interesting

 

[Icedaisey]

Nations can manipulate the weather now. China, America, who else? Who knows.

Earth's climate changes spam millions of years. The difference between then and now is it is able to be used as a tool to scare people. And make a huge profit being successful at that.

 

[Dude653]

Who bumped a 6-year-old thread?

 

[ZNP]

This is not hypocrisy

The people at this COP 26 Climate change event have been shown to have the highest carbon footprints on the planet. It may seem hypocritical that the people who have the most gas guzzlers, the ones who fly around in private jets, are telling everyone else to stop using fossil fuel.

Generally that would be true, but this is being held on October 31st. It is really just a big halloween party where they are all dressing up as Social Justice Warriors concerned about the climate. It is simply a costume they are wearing.

Hold it, I'm being reminded that wearing a mask is the definition of hypocrite, OK, my bad, they are hypocrites.

This is a big trick or treat, give us $26 trillion or we will destroy the world.

This is how elites celebrate Halloween.

 

[ZNP]

It is amazing to me that with all these climate disasters worldwide just when we need help with this a teenage girl, a waitress turned idealogue and Joe Biden are on the scene to "build back better".

Everyone is focusing on how much Biden's agenda has demolished the US economy, but it is all part of his build back better program, tear it all down first and then build it back better with $10 trillion.

So the real message in Joe Biden falling asleep at the Climate summit is to let America know you can rest easy knowing you have Joe Biden on this.

 

[studentoftheword]

There is no climate change ----Al Gore is a millionaire from claiming there is climate change -----

No man was ever given authority over the climate -----God is in charge of the climate ----

No man can save this planet ---this planet is going to be destroyed by fire and no man can stop it ----


2 Peter 3:10-13

New International Version
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[a]
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b] That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

I say ------
And God never gave man any authority over any of the 3 heavens either ------so saying that man has to stop the green house gases from eating the ozone layer away and all that garbage is ridiculous ---If God can make a coin come out of a fishes mouth ---He can keep Gases from destroying His heavens ----
God only gave man dominion over this lower earth -----

Describes Three Heavens
The first heaven mentioned in Scripture is the sky: the abode of birds, kites, and airplanes. Genesis 1:20, Job 12:7, and Psalm 8:8 (among many other verses) speak of this first heaven.

The second heaven described in Scripture is "outer space": the abode of the sun, the moon, and the stars. Genesis 15:5, Deuteronomy 4:19, Psalm 8:3 all mention this second heaven.

The third heaven Scripture addresses is the spiritual realm that is the abode of G-d and angels. Ephesians 1:20 says that the Father has raised Messiah from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places.

I say -----So Climate change is Satan deceiving people and giving them false hope and placing fear in the world ----