Blatant climate change propaganda

This post gave me cancer

There are no "piles upon piles of scientific studies proving climate change is very real". Or perhaps I should say that there is not a shred of evidence that man is causing climate change or that he can do a damn thing to stop it. What you have, at best, is guess work, and at worst, fraudulent data that has been massaged and manipulated to fit the hypothesis, and when that's not enough, organizations like NASA, NOAA, and IPCC just flat out manufacture data -- and, yes, there is damning evidence of such manipulations. I've said it before, but if creationists were ever caught fudging data to the extent that environmentalists are guilty of, the whooping and hollering and cries of "Fraud!" from skeptics would be deafening.

Even the claims of a 98% consensus among climatologists that often makes its way into global warming propaganda is a ginned up figure based on deliberately flawed surveys. It's not about science, it's about politics, which is why every environmental proposal is nothing but a checklist for implementing socialism.

Here is one of the best resources for global warming on the internet which carefully pulls back the covers and shows you that there's no bogey man underneath:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Here are some basic facts based on an objective, peer-reviewed study:

• Global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation.

• Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.

• Solar forcing of temperature change is likely more important than is currently recognized.

• No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.

• Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.

• A phase of temperature stasis or cooling has succeeded the mild warming of the twentieth century. Similar periods of warming and cooling due to natural variability are certain to occur in the future irrespective of human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals.

In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis – that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions -- is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor. It simply ignores the alternative and null hypothesis, amply supported by empirical research, that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability.

The results of the global climate models (GCMs) relied on by IPCC are only as reliable as the data and theories “fed” into them. Most climate scientists agree those data are seriously deficient and IPCC’s estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2 is too high. We estimate a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7 Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming. The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.

In a similar fashion, all five of IPCC’s postulates, or assumptions, are readily refuted by real-world observations, and all five of IPCC’s claims relying on circumstantial evidence are refutable. For example, in contrast to IPCC’s alarmism, we find neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. In any case, such evidence cannot be invoked to “prove” a hypothesis, but only to disprove one. IPCC has failed to refute the null hypothesis that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability.

The factual aspects, that climate change is occurring, is indeed so. But the conclusions that the liberal left draws is so misleading that it is essentially complete lies.

Climate change is not much of an issue for the US at all. The US is an extremely wealthy and highly technologically developed country with a sizable inland high attitude landmass. The US need not fear climate change much. It is the pacific island countries that should fear.

Right, except it takes (unimaginably) longer than humans have been on Earth - for such changes to occur on a planetary level... If there's even the slightest chance that we are causing irreparable damage to the only known planet in the observable Universe which sustains life... Then, you know, what is there to say.

In 20 years nothing will change. But even if you could magically transport into the future and see it for yourself, you still will hold on to your misguided beliefs, because that's what they are. You want to believe that people are bad and no rational thought can change your inner desire. You see what you want to see.

Yeah, that was supposed to have happened already according to a number of (obviously incorrect) predictions. The newest theory -- or perhaps I should say snow job -- is that all the dams and reservoirs that have been built since 1900 have kept sea levels in check. And if you believe that then you might be interested in a bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale.

Face it, kiddo, none of the many disastrous global warming predictions have come to pass, and they will never come to pass. You've fallen for the biggest con job of the 20th century. 40-years later and they're still reeling in suckers like you.

Thank God Greta Thunberg was not around yet for another two,three years. Or Joe Biden or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's agenas, either! (back in 2015(),