MovieChat Forums > Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (2014) Discussion > Global Warming is a hoax funded by globa...

Global Warming is a hoax funded by globalists.


The whole purpose of insisting global warming exists in spite of contradictory evidence can be traced to those who would benefit from it politically--the global government advocates. Individual countries couldn't solve this problem without trashing their economies if it actually existed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest- Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

_______________________
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
[link=SeeMarkupHelp]

reply

Ten facts about climate change

1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.4°C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artifacts.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -18°C rather than the equable +15°C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (8°C) of the total greenhouse effect (33C), of which in turn at most 25% (~2°C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC willfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .02°C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior adviser to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most aggressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali road map”.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

reply

[deleted]

Lies all lies! Dont you know there is 97% scientific consensus among those scientists who believe in global cooling, wait I mean the ozone hole, wait I mean global warming, wait I mean climate change, wait I mean global climate disruption.

"When he found that his long cherished beliefs did not agree with the most precise observations, he accepted the uncomfortable facts. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions. That is the heart of science."
- Carl Sagan on Johannes Kepler

reply

1. Climate has always changed
Of course climate has always changed. Every climate scientist knows this.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.4°C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artifacts.
You are referencing a study by Spencer and Christy (1992). More recent studies by Mears et al (2003 and 2005) have shown that there were errors in the original study. Your information is out-of-date.

Also, climate scientists are well aware of the urban heat island effect and have taken it into account.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
There are multiple lines of evidence pointing to humans as the dominant force of climate change.

4. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas
CO2 causes a rise in water vapor, which in turn causes more CO2 to be released. This is known as a feedback loop.

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).
You have created a false dichotomy. Sparks can cause fire and fire can cause sparks. Likewise, changes in CO2 can both cause and be caused by global warming. Climate scientists are well aware of the implications.

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Numerous papers have shown that the IPCC greatly underestimates climate response. The full IPCC reports are available to anyone who is interested. IPCC is made up of thousands of scientists working to summarize an incredible amount of data. It's hard to argue that it's not a scientific body.

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .02°C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).
Current cost estimates are less than half of IPCC's original minimum estimate. Having a project cost come in below the projected minimum cost is practically unheard of. The Kyoto Protocol is seen by many as not enough, but at least a first step. Good luck trying to get every country in the world to cooperate on anything, let alone something with so much corporate opposition.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
Global climate is not as chaotic as you think it is. Computer models predict climate averages, not day-to-day weather. Currently, IPCC's models have been underestimating things like sea-level rise and ice melt.

Climate models are constantly being tested on historic climate data as well as major climate events such as volcanoes. They do very well and are only improving.

9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
Current models are limited to about 100km x 100km regions. Scientists are constantly improving this as computer power allows. No-one is claiming to be able to make accurate regional predictions.

10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
No-one is asserting that ALL scientists agree. However, the consensus grows in fields that are more closely related to climate. Published climate scientists have a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming. This is corroborated across three separate studies and endorsed by virtually every scientific organization around the world (those that have made a statement one way or the other). Not a single scientific academy has rejected that consensus.

Perhaps you're talking about the 31,000 signatures on the OISM petition. That figure represents 0.3% of the 10 million graduated scientists in the US (or 0.1% if you include only climate-related scientists).

reply

Sigh...

reply

There are contradictory evidence, and then there are people who just don't understand enough of what they are reading to figure out there's no contradiction there.

Only last night bunch of halfwits found article saying arctic sea ice was bigger than ever and they took it to mean global warming is disproved. How do you even begin to explain such fundamental stuff to people, like, sea ice, means, sea got frozen, so when that melts in the spring, level of sea is gonna rise, 0(invert unit of length your village is comfortable with). The ice that is problematic due to global warming is landmass ice. When this ice melts, it's not sea water, it's new water that will sink New York, and Florida and so on. And that ice has never been thinner.

This is so basic, that it's frankly insulting having to explain to anyone, I mean, if you don't understand by hearing it first time, you are clearly too dumb to get it even after someone wastes their time trying to explain. But even those too dumb to get it, can yelp all over internet how it's "contradictory".

I don't know man, maybe humans are too dumb and don't deserve to be saved.

Look at it this way, evolution developed eye and figured "what a swell idea" so she stomped eyes all around. Then it developed intelligence. Clearly not such a good idea if only humans get it.

___
Anyone who has ever read any spoilers,
knows that Winter Is Coming

reply

"Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies." -- Scott Westerfield

The good thing about science is its true whether you believe it or not.

reply

Maybe you should listen more to scientists and less to right wing politicians are radio hosts.
Also, using the Daily Mail as a source gives you 0 credibility.




If I don't reply, you're probably on my ignore list for something I forgot already

reply

You want to hear about a REAL hoax? It's anybody who might have said you were intelligent. They were just pulling your leg. = P

reply

... anybody who might have said you were intelligent.
I didn't stay with Mensa for very long. I thought those people were a bit eccentric. No doubt many believe in man-made global warming as a primary source. Someone mentioned the 97% support--totally bogus number. BTW, Mensa takes only the top 2% in IQ measured by objective testing which is far more reliable than climate models.

DrakeStraw
LinkLikeThis
[link=SeeMarkupEnabled]

reply

The only person I've seen benefit from calling Global Warming a hoax is Trump and subsequently fossil fuel companies. How wonderful for all of us.

reply