THERE IS NO AGW

TreeParty, now that I’ve had a chance to mostly rebuild my bookmarks following a disastrous Windows 10 upgrade[one can only do this after having filed a case number with Microsoft for failure of your operating system to upgrade to Windows 10], it’s time for me to pick-apart your comments, and unseat you from your high horse. I can assure you that the new administration of Donald Trump will give this CAGW item its proper priority, LAST on the list of major social agenda items, just what a 2015 Gallup Inc. survey, indicated “Billions of dollars poured in alarmist propaganda, by politicians and vested interests in the renewables industry, and over a decade of time, might Just|as well have been tossed down the drain. The only result of this stupendous attempt to mobilise public opinion, has been a barely measurable increase in support, amongst people who were presumably already sympathetic to the climate alarmist message – and a massive drop in support outside this magic circle of fellow travelers. “ and “Besides the recent cold weather snap, it’s possible Americans have been influenced by the Climategate scandal, which claimed to show the scientists are “concealing” data, focused on politics instead of science, and are readily admitting internally that climate change “science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.” Some of the other predictions made about the United States also did not come about, with the major one being an increase in hurricane activity. “, http://bit.ly/2gqyRGO

First, I agree I gave you the wrong link regarding Greenland’s temperature record, a mistake on my part probably in my haste to get to school that day, I believe. While admittedly going back maybe a little further than 2000 years, this graph clearly shows that Greenland has been much warmer in the past under the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) [the period which Michael Mann attempted to obliterate in his fraudulent hockey stick graph, along with the Little Ice Age (LIA)], the Roman Warming Period and highest of all, the Minoan Warming Period or as shown here So, no, I don’t agree with you regarding the historical temperature of Greenland, as it has been much warmer in the past than today, .and there is nothing unusual about this warming, http://bit.ly/2i1lNF4. Finally, did you realize that when the ice core drillers reached the bottom, 3 km, of their surveying of the Greenland ice sheet, they found a 2.7-Million-Year-Old Forested Landscape Discovered under Greenland.

Two, you indicate that the entire planet has increased in temperature by 1°C in the last century, but why is that unusual given that that we’ve just come out of the LIA and natural warming would do that, again http://bit.ly/2i1lNF4. Were you aware of the fact that the temperature of the earth hasn’t increased for more than 18 years and 9 months now, But more importantly, the steepest drop in global temperature on record just occurred, http://bit.ly/2gcGG2s , dropping temperatures by more than 1°C over land. “Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans. ” ,again, http://bit.ly/2gcGG2s .

“Let’s take a look at Muller’s chart, and then compare it to the chart for the last 11 years — which the Daily Mail labels an “inconvenient truth”: First, let’s look at the top chart. A closer reading of the top chart shows that, relative to the 1950-1980 average baseline BEST uses, temperatures didn’t actually warm at all until sometime during the Great Depression, so the entire first century of the Industrial Era apparently had no impact — in a period where the dirtiest of mass energy production processes was in widest use (coal). Temperatures then started to slowly rise during an era of significantly reduced industrial output, thanks to a lengthy economic depression that gripped the entire world.” Pay close attention to what Prof. Curry says about Prof. Murray’s comments on CO2 correlation with temperature in this chart.

These 3 facts should take quite a bit of the starch out of your claim, as that 1°C increase in temperature has just evaporated, all this as CO2 has continued to rise, and is now at 410.28 ppm

as of late April 2017.

You seem to have been sucked into this CO2 is the evil object/monster of the planet that has been perpetuated by the IPCC and devoted global warmists such as yourself and which is now being sold as gospel to the small group of other scientists who make up your band of cohorts who believe in this “settled science”. As I think I’ll show you, I believe it’s all a bunch of hooey, if not outright horse-poop, and you are definitely an acolyte for the Al Gore priesthood, but probably not making the money he is, else you wouldn’t be on these stupid webpages.

I feel like I need to share with you some facts regarding the IPCC. Rather than being a organization which looks for all of the issues regarding climate change, you must be aware by now that the IPCC was only tasked with looking for human-induced climate change, http://bit.ly/1xJPNb4 , not examining any other explanations for climate change. So naturally, all grants towards climate research had that in mind, finding humans responsible. So billions of dollars have gone towards finding man responsible, rather than a clear and open-minded research, it’s all one-way. Every new research paper that is published supposedly finds more and more bazaar and hyperbolic statements of doom for the planet and the IPCC has also increasingly perpetrated this mess, ignoring the natural elements of climate change. * Perhaps Syun Akasofu, Founding Director of the International Arctic research Center, captured that sentiment best when he said that ”Unfortunately, many scientists appear to forget that weather and climate also are controlled by nature, as we witness weather changes every day and climate changes in longer terms. During the last several years, I have suggested that it is important to identify the natural effects and subtract them from the temperature changes. Only then can we be sure of the man-made contributions. This suggestion brought me the dubious honor of being designated “Alaska’s most famous climate change skeptic.””

Other criticisms of the IPCC are http://bit.ly/2l5d8Tp, http://bit.ly/2kDQvbC http://stanford.io/2l9Ryhm, http://bit.ly/2oU4xsg, and http://bit.ly/2ofMav3.

By contrast, laboratory experiments show that increasing carbon dioxide in today’s atmosphere may cause slight warming, probably immeasurable. The rest is built on speculation, not hard evidence. Using an international agreement built on inadequate evidence is hardly justification for another agreement, or a tax, built on inadequate evidence. See Article # 1 and links under Questioning the Orthodoxy, and Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes. …

The energized, electronic grid is one such system. To achieve reliable electricity at a designed frequency, engineers must balance generation of electricity with consumption, within narrow tolerances. Deviation can crash the system. Weather events, such as storms can disrupt the system. Now, thanks to the whims of politicians (as in South Australia), too much erratic wind power generation can disrupt the system. The level of wind power is determined by politicians who have little regard for the reliability of the system. Yet, when the system fails, the politicians blame others or that it was hot weather or cold weather that caused the failure. See links under Energy Issues – Australia “

TreeParty, I could say that extreme environmentalists such as yourself are similar to these uninformed politicians, who claim that all we have to put up a lot of solar panels and wind turbines, without considering all of the thing of consumption within narrow tolerances as described above, backup electrical generation issues required, usually fossil fuel powered.Just examine what has recently happened in Germany, with their Energiewende) (transition to renewable energy)

Some reviews of keep The the Hockey Stick illusions

Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph…Montford’s book is written with grace and flair. Like all the best science writers, he knows that the secret is not to leave out the details (because this just results in platitudes and leaps of faith), but rather to make the details delicious, even to the most unmathematical reader. I never thought I would find myself unable to put a book down because—sad, but true—I wanted to know what happened next in an r-squared calculation. This book deserves to win prizes.

Matt Ridley, Prospect Magazine (UK)

The Hockey Stick Illusion by A W Montford, brilliantly tells the bizarre tale of how Mann’s colleagues, calling themselves “the Hockey Team” and now at the heart of the IPCC, managed to resurrect the discredited graph for inclusion in its 2007 report.

Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph (UK)

For anybody who wants to understand the scientific and psychological background to Climategate, there is no better read than Andrew Montford’s new book, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science.

Peter Foster, National Post (Canada)

A.W. Montford’s book tells the gripping and suspenseful details of McIntyre’s pursuit of the self-denominated “hockey team” led by Michael Mann, who wrote the key chapters on his own work for the IPCC, and Phil Jones, who maintains the temperature record used by the IPCC to document the “Hockey Stick”: limning allegedly unprecedented and anomalous anthropogenic global warming in the Twentieth Century while denying that any comparable or greater warming occurred in the Medieval period.

George Gilder, Discovery News (US)

Montford has done a great service to science, to history and to a public grown sceptical of the scare stories upon which vast amounts of research funding, carbon trading and energy technology subsidies depend. That story cannot now claim that the 20th century warmth is unprecedented.

Peter Taylor, ECOS

As far as the pre-industrial CO2 in the atmosphere goes, other sources contest that the CO2 in the atmosphere was ever really as low as 280 ppm.

The youngest CO2 data, is not based on ice cores but on South Pole Air Flask samples– which consistently show CO2 higher than 300 ppm. The point in time useful for considering what CO2 concetrations really were before humans started to burn fossil fuels is at the start of the Industrial Revolution— about 1750 AD. A key assumption is that pre-industrial CO2 concentrations were less than 280 ppm and that everything above that is caused by humans. This assumption, however, is not without problems, although seldom discussed.”, http://bit.ly/2i0i0eg ….For reasons that are unclear, only a few of these tests were considered valid by G.S. Calendar (1898-1964)– the grandfather of the theory of man-made global warming. …However, CO2 data available at the time showed concentrations ranged between 250 ppm and 550 ppm (Figure 4). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) places the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 280 ppm, based largely on the ice core record, although this has never been otherwise substantiated (7), emphasis added .

Furthermore, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski argues convincingly that the CO2 levels in many ice cores have been contaminated as well as subjected to intentionally distorted sampling. “When climate science was not driven by ideology, it was generally assumed that long-term astronomical cycles—those measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of years—were the way in which climate had to be situated.A significant declining trend of values in Figure 1, between 1860 and 1900, when CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning increased from 91.5 to 485.6 tons of carbon was similar to a decrease to a global surface air temperature decrease in this period.7 This may reflect lower CO2 degassing from colder oceans, the result of natural climate fluctuations.8To reach the low 19th-century CO2 concentration, the cornerstone of this hypothesis, Callender used a bias selection method. From a set of 26 19th-century averages, Callender rejected 16 that were higher than his assumed low global average, and 2 that were lower. … Because of uncertainties in 19th-century air measurements, studies of greenhouse gases in glacier ice are often regarded – incorrectly – as the most reliable estimates of CO2, CH 4 (methane), and N2O (Nitrous oxide) in the pre-industrial atmosphere…On the basis of these analyses, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change11 declared that the pre-industrial CO2 level in the atmosphere was 26 percent lower than current levels. The IPCC also declared that the pre-industrial concentration of N2O was 19 percent lower and that CH4was 215 percent lower than current levels.

. However, no study has yet demonstrated that the content of trace greenhouse trace gases in old ice, or even the interstitial area from recent snow represents the atmospheric composition. One must read the entire section on “Fudging the CO2 Data” section to see how various researchers and the IPCC manipulated the data on CO2 levels to ignore levels as high as 700-2450ppmv yes, that’s two thousand,four hundred and fifty, in pre-industrial ice. …This article finishes with this

The data in Figure 9 suggest that CO2 atmospheric mass increases were not related to man-made emissions of this gas, but rather these increases depended on volcanic eruptions and other causes of natural climate fluctuations,”http://bit.ly/2iyXXAE .” (Emphasis added)

Over the last 40 million years the CO2 level in the atmosphere has fallen from 1000-2000 ppmv to a minimum of 180 ppmv 20.000 years ago Not since the Perm period circa 250 million years ago has the CO2 level been so low.“http://bit.ly/2iOo7mx So there’s no causation between high CO2 levels and high temperatures.

Finally, regarding CO2’s influence on climate, are you aware that CO2 has only a logarithmic effect on temperatures, http://bit.ly/2fK9xuc . The third chart (bar chart) shows that most of the effect of CO2 is gained by the 1st 20 ppm, and that each extra 20 ppm has less and less effect on the temperature. As Mr. Archibald explains “Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).”

But let’s look at whether CO2 actually drives temperatures/climate. The following webpages clearly show that temperature leads CO2 levels in the past, http://bit.ly/2gMdH2C, and http://bit.ly/2gv5ZgK Mr. Caryl summed up his article with the following “Nowhere here do we see any indication that CO2 is driving temperature

Please watch Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever’s speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015, as he destroys the global warming hypothesis, Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax

Also, the The astronomical theory of the Ice Age The ice age reached its peak 18,000 years ago when the tilt had risen to a value of 23.4 degrees from a low of 22.2 degrees 32,000 years ago. Since then the tilt has reached a maximum of 24.2 degrees (10,000 years ago). Today, the Earth’s tilt measures 23.5 degrees, and the large ice sheets have disappeared. The three orbital parameters that are affected are the eccentricity (how circular the orbit is) which varies with periods between 400,000 and 100,000 years; obliquity (how tilted the Earth is with respect to its orbit around the Sun) which varies with a period of about 40,000 and affects the solar radiation most strongly at the poles; and precession (changes in the distance between the Earth and Sun in a given season) which varies with a period of about 23,000 years and affects the solar radiation most strongly at the equator(Emphasis added)

What Per Cent of Global Warming Is Natural? Past Climate History Has The Answer

This page directs one to view the webpage first, and then coming back to the original webpage. “Finally, the Greenland ice sheets that the ice cores came from obviously survived much higher temperatures without sliding into the sea, as global warming alarmists claim will happen by 2100. “So you can see that the IPCC’s narrative that current temperatures are unprecedented is simply not true.

Do you still want to stick with your unproven theory that CO2 is somehow involved with temperature increases? I will agree that there’s been some correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures, but always, temperatures led CO2 upwards, NOT the other way around.

Other explanations for why Greenland has been warming are offered:

Linked, abrupt changes of North Atlantic deep water formation, North Atlantic sea ice extent, and widespread climate occurred repeatedly during the last ice age cycle and beyond in response to changing freshwater fluxes and perhaps other causes. This paradigm, developed and championed especially by W.S. Broecker, has repeatedly proven to be successfully predictive as well as explanatory with high confidence. “, http://tinyurl.com/zy8r and

“The story of melting glaciers has been told ad nauseam by climate catastrophists and the scientifically gullible news media for years. This blog has reported on the purported “rapid melting” of the Himalayan glaciers several times before (see “Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting” and “Himalayan Glacier Disappearance Overstated”). It is true that glaciers melt, they are the primary source of water in a number of regions around the world….

As I have often stated, this is an interglacial period, ice is supposed to melt. Otherwise there would still be a mile of ice on top of New York City.”, http://bit.ly/2jovlhU

In the last million years the Earth’s climate has alternated between ice ages lasting about 100,000 years and interglacial periods of 10,000 to 15,000 years. The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.” http://bit.ly/2j0rW5x As you can see, while nearly 1,000,000 years ago, temperatures were 8°C warmer than today. I think it’s just normal/natural cyclic ice ages and interglacial periods. This cyclic changeover has been observed in many places in the world:”The findings also show evidence of ice in Greenland during the Eemian interglacial period 125,000 years ago, which indicates that although we are now confronted with global warming, the whole ice sheet will probably not melt and bring about the tremendous sea-level rises which have been the subject of so much discussion.”, http://bit.ly/2iQYeiA ,”

The latest such find is a woolen tunic discovered next to a thawing glacier in southern Norway.” http://bit.ly/2iUGuqe , “Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region’s rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.”, http://bit.ly/2iRZd6n ,”Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.…Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers.” http://bit.ly/2i5gmHK , “Through analysis and interpretation of these photographic pairs, information is extracted to document Alaskan landscape evolution and glacier dynamics for the last century-and-a-quarter on local and regional scales and the response of the Alaskan landscape to retreating glacier ice.””, http://bit.ly/2jnhys5 , “”The climate 400,000 years ago was not that much different than what we see today, or at least what is predicted for the end of the century,” said Anders Carlson, an associate professor at Oregon State University and co-author on the study. “The forcing was different, but what is important is that the region crossed the threshold allowing the southern portion of the ice sheet to all but disappear. This may give us a better sense of what may happen in the future as temperatures continue rising,” Carlson added.”, http://bit.ly/2iQmmDf

“The climate change, the warming that’s certainly taking place here, is by no means uniform. In fact, 4,000 miles to the east of the Bering Glacier, weather stations in Greenland are reporting that temperatures are actually getting cooler. “, http://cbsn.ws/2jv60TH .

““Greenland really was green! However, it was millions of years ago. Greenland looked like the green Alaskan tundra, before it was covered by the second largest body of ice on Earth,” Dr Rood said.”, http://bit.ly/2jxGgG4

Third, there is NO CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE, climate or otherwise. Science is about results of experiments which can be replicated by others. No matter many how many people you say agree with this Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, it’s still just that, a THEORY ONLY. If numbers of scientists were the sole determinant, I’d guess that the 31,000+ scientists, including more than 9000 PhD’s, who signed the Global Warming Petition Project, http://nws.mx/2hhh2vf would easily dwarf the small numbers of scientists who actually believe in AGW, not to mention these great climate scientists who disagree with your so-called “settled science”, http://bit.ly/2hsu84A . Finally, here’s a list of UN climate scientists who disagree with everything you’ve said, http://bit.ly/2h4pUTb . These are the very people who are writing these so-called “world death and destruction scenarios”. It sounds to me like the IPCC has an agenda that will guide the findings and policy of their reports.

But let’s get back to Greenland, because you seem to think that CO2 is the only possible answer for it’s melting. Perhaps you weren’t aware of the fact that Greenland sits over a hotspot in the Earth’s mantle, contributing to its glacier melting, as proven here: http://bit.ly/2hp4CRP, http://bit.ly/2hX8j0h, http://bit.ly/2hHUjV9, and http://bit.ly/2hrAbdE.

Also, “Glaciers come and go naturally and have for 20 billion years. The Earth couldn’t care less, he said. If humans were extinct, the glaciers would still be melting today, he said. Are we going to fix things by creating less greenhouse gases?” Molina said. No. And if you think so, you don’t know how the Earth works – you’re a politician.” “, http://bit.ly/2iUMooN And that’s what we got with the IPCC, a political body, NOT a scientific one.

“Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. …

By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. …

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”…

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern. ”…

It’s becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus , asserts Mr. James Taylor, http://bit.ly/2iL1y2J

“The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of ‘settled science’ and an overwhelming ‘consensus’ in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong,” the petition asserts. “No such consensus or settled science exists. …

Over 9,000 of the petition’s signatories have a PhD. in a scientific field. …

For all the talk of “settled science,” all that has been settled is the stunning inaccuracies of alarmists — from failed computer models and a discredited “hockey stick” graphic that pointed to exponential warming, to dire predictions of melting Himalayan glaciers, receding rain forests, increases in hurricane activity, and the end of snow. …

The report also found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes have been greatly exaggerated, and “based on the best available temperature records,” the region has actually warmed only “about 0.65 degrees Celsius [about 1.1 degree F.] since 1860.” …

Adherents of the “science-is-settled” argument often cite a study that tabulated the number of times global warming appeared in abstracts of articles and concluded that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the theory that human activity causes global warming.

The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6 percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming, while two-thirds expressed no position.

http://nws.mx/2hhh2vf

“If you want fundraising in the billions rather than the thousands, you need a good end-of-days, sin-and-redemption scare. Human-caused global warming is your answer! …

I see it differently. I predict a high likelihood of substantial collapse of the global warming movement, both domestically and internationally, over the course of the next couple of years….

Start with the EPA. To the extent that the global warming movement has anything to do with “science,” EPA is supposedly where that science is vetted and approved on behalf of the public before being turned into policy. …

For example, when a major new Research Report came out back in September claiming to completely invalidate all of the bases on which EPA claims that CO2 is a danger to human health and welfare, and thus to undermine EPA’s authority to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act, EPA simply failed to respond. In the same vein, essentially all prominent global warming alarmists refuse to debate anyone who challenges any aspect of their orthodoxy. Well, that has worked as long as they and their allies have controlled all of the agencies and all of the money. Now, it will suddenly be put up or shut up. And in case you might think that the science on this issue is “settled,” so no problem, you might enjoy this recent round-up at Climate Depot from some of the actual top scientists.A couple of excerpts:

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side. ‘ . . .

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ – ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’…

How do you explain an almost-20-year “pause” in increasing temperatures even as CO2 emissions have accelerated?

Here’s my prediction: As soon as the United States stops parroting the global warming line, the other countries will quickly start backing away from it as well. This is “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” with the U.S. in the role of the little kid who is the only one willing to say the obvious truth in the face of mass hysteria. …

During the eight Obama years, the energy sector of the U.S. economy has been substantially transformed by a technological revolution that has dramatically lowered the cost of energy and hugely benefited the American consumer. I’m referring, of course, to the fracking revolution. How much of the tens of billions of U.S. energy subsidies and research funding in that time went toward this revolution that actually produced cheaper energy that works? Answer: Not one single dollar! All of the money was completely wasted on things that are uneconomic and will disappear as soon as the government cuts off the funding spigot. All of this funding can and should be zeroed out in the next budget. Believe me, nobody will notice other than the parasites who have been wasting the money.

The environmental movement has climbed itself way out onto the global warming limb. Now the Trump administration is about to start sawing off the limb behind them.

http://bit.ly/2hdmgUw

Here are some segments from an article titled “Why I Stopped Believing in Man-made Global Warming and Became a Climate Skeptic”

“The first time I experienced a twinge of climate change doubt was when I learned that carbon dioxide (CO2) comprised less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. In truth, such a seemingly small amount shouldn’t be underestimated since CO2 starts trapping heat quite effectively at far more minuscule concentrations. But at the time, I thought, “That’s strange. I would have thought it was a lot more….

At that point, two minor pieces of information helped to trigger a real curiosity for me—and led me to realize that the issue was far more complicated than I had always believed.

The first was learning that man produces only a tiny portion of all CO2 released into the atmosphere each year. In contrast, for example, termites alone release far more CO2 annually (and by several orders of magnitude) than all the burning of fossil fuels. The second was learning that there had been a global cooling scare in the 1970s….

Simply put, I went from wholeheartedly believing in man-made “climate change” to viewing the science undergirding the case as very questionable. Overall, I became resentful that I’d been naively indoctrinated by a daily, one-sided media barrage. And I started to look at myself as something of a freedom fighter—someone who was pushing back against misinformation—and making people aware that they were being manipulated. …

For starters, CO2 is actually a rather flawed “greenhouse gas.” When CO2 is first introduced into the atmosphere it rapidly absorbs as much heat (in the form of infrared radiation) as possible. But it doesn’t take long for CO2 to become “optically saturated.” This means that after reaching roughly 0.0020 percent (20 parts per million) of the atmosphere, CO2 starts fading. From then on, it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to trap the same amount of heat. By the present concentration of 0.04 percent (400 parts per million), CO2 is essentially saturated—and can’t meaningfully trap much additional heat. …

In truth, basic science demonstrates exactly the opposite, which is why climate scientists actually base most of their projected warming on “positive feedback” from water vapor. …

Simply put, water vapor in the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain—which not only lowers surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere. …

So the real question should be: Well if CO2 isn’t driving global warming, what is? …

And so, not only did solar activity increase sharply during the 20th century, but this same increase in output corresponds quite closely with other warm periods recorded over the past few thousands of years. …

However, this view overlooks the related—and larger—impacts of solar variability, including atmospheric ionization and cloud formation. And so, when considered together, these associated factors demonstrate a more complete picture of solar variability’s relevance …

UV radiation is the primary source of atmospheric warmth, which helps to explain why increased UV penetration during the latter portion of the 20th century contributed to a rise in temperatures …

In fact, since the late 1990s, both satellite data and weather balloon measurements show a net flatlining of global temperatures. …

Simply put, the theory of man-made warming cannot account for a halt in the overall rise in temperatures, or why computer models (programmed to emphasize a high climate sensitivity to CO2) are continuing to diverge from actual, observed temperature measurements. …

The overall point is that there are valid reasons to question both the assumptions and policies advocated by climate change activists. It would be helpful if those who take a stand against presumed man-made warming were given a chance to expand on their reasoning, rather than face criticism and scorn.”

http://bit.ly/2hi2c7r “If the United States were to actually make the transition to a partially or fully wind- and solar-based power infrastructure, the failures of Europe and Australia’s green energy experiments show that the nation would experience an ongoing series of power shortages and blackouts. “ Mr. Gapozzola has some extremely good advice as well as writing an excellent article detailing not only the history of freezing weather in the world, but also, but also the difficulty of using intermittent sources of power, like wind and solar.

“However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. “, http://bit.ly/2iCl1Tg

You must have questioned how the IPCC arrived at its findings. I think you should view this video, the Corbett Report’s the The IPCC Exposed . I apologize that this is 45 minutes long, but it’s well worth the effort to watch it. Please pay close attention to how Dr. Tim Ball explains how the IPCC was formed, and their constraints in reaching conclusions, by their charter. Also, the Summary for Policymakers being produced before the final IPCC report is even written appears highly problematic to me. Here also is further proof of the IPCC’s skewness towards the man-caused possible explanations of climate change .

Read here, here and here. The UN’s IPCC political leaders, bureaucrats and the Climategate scientists have said for years that today’s temperatures are “unprecedented.” They also claim that all temperatures to the right of the black-dash line on the graph below are natural; and, all temperatures to the left of the black-dash line are unnatural, due to human CO2. The past visible history (as shown) of temperature records makes both these claims flat-out lies. The historical record also indicates that temperatures fluctuate up and down without any relationship to the CO2 level. (click on image to enlarge), http://bit.ly/2jw0ekx . (Emphasis added) Other references that deal with the so-called “unprecedented” say that, “10. Scientists who study satellite data should not use the term “unprecedented changes”. (They do not have satellite data before the

1970s and cannot tell if any of the changes are “unprecedented”, even those that occurred in the 1930s or 1940s, not having comparable data.)

Let’s examine the Climategate files, for some inconsistencies with how this “Settled science” was generated.

First, Briffa’s Yumal study of trees was seriously flawed, as described here and here .

Then Michael Mann generated a hockey-stick graph using Bristlecone Pines (BCP) , from the area of White Mountains of California that was covered by a drought condition for many years. “According to real scientists, the graph also gave extreme weighting to datasets that showed unusual 20th-century warming at the expense of those that did not. And the program that Mr Mann created to draw the graph would have shown the 20th century as unusually warm even if random red noise rather than real-world data were fed in. There were numerous other statistical curiosities. Mr Mann’s graph is perhaps the most laughable and widely-discredited object in the history of bad science supporting worse politics.

The `Hockey Stick’

From the diagram, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate – until 1900 AD

As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.”

Contrary to Michael Mann’s now widely discredited hockey stick “science,” the Neukom et al research found the MWP was a significant high temperature event in South America. This team of 18 highly qualified researchers came from 7 countries; they chose the best 22 climate proxies to reconstruct a thousand+ year temperature series.

Perhaps you’ll be compelled to watch and listen to Dr. Easterbrook as he discusses climate with the Washington state legislators Listen closely as he says that CO2 cannot cause Global Warming.

Latest Inconvenient Science: European Scientists Confirm Exxon Not To Blame For Climate Change…

In summary, their extensive analysis of the hydrological evidence does not comport with the simulated findings of the most advanced CO2-centric climate models available (surprise, surprise).

Clearly, the accompanying graph depicts the never ending condition of natural climate change, providing further proof that human fossil fuel emissions – and Exxon – are not to blame.”

Here is an article describing why the IPCC models of climate science are not useful and should not be used for any modeling, http://bit.ly/2lrM4OL . A key portion of this article is as follows “If the warming since 1950 was caused by humans, then what caused the warming during the period 1910-1940? The period 1910-1940 comprises about 40% of the warming since 1900, but is associated with only 10% of the carbon dioxide increase since 1900. Clearly, human emissions of greenhouse gases played little role in this early warming. The mid-century period of slight cooling from 1945-1975 – referred as the ‘grand hiatus’ – has also not been satisfactorily explained.”

But if one thing is clear in climate science it is that the earth’s climate system is not linear, but is instead a highly complex, non-linear system made up of sub-systems – such as the ENSO, and the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the various circulating systems of the oceans – that are themselves highly non-linear. Among other things, such non-linearity means that it may be extremely difficult to separately identify the impact of an external shock to the system – such as what climate scientists call anthropogenic CO2 forcing – from changes that are simply due to natural cycles, or due to other external natural and anthropogenic forces, such as solar variation and human land use changes. Perhaps even more importantly, any given forcing may have impacts that are much larger – in the case of positive feedbacks – or much smaller – in the case of negative feedbacks – than a simple, linear vision of the climate system would suggest”, http://bit.ly/2oNNqrG

Perhaps the second best reason for Greenland’s warming is Arctic Sea ice loss – “it’s the wind” says NASA, http://bit.l“?y/2oIKE3J , quoting from the article “Polyakov concludes: A combination of century- and half-a-century-long data records and model integrations leads us to conclude that the natural low-frequency oscillation (LFO) exists and is an important contributor to the recent anomalous environmental conditions in the Arctic. This mode of oscillation is related to fluctuations in the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic [Delworth and Mann, 2000]. Comparison of the century-long NAO index time series and half a century time series of the polar region SAT, SLP differences, and wind vorticity index shows the existence of the LFO mode in the latter time series. There is evidence that the LFO has a strong impact on ice and ocean variability. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.

TreeParty, you saidOther possible mechanisms, and groups of mechanisms, have been considered, evaluated, and rejected, as the CHIEF driver of the measurable global warming. …To recapitulate: There is no other scientifically defensible explanation for the observable rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet but AGW. “

All of which leads me to my final point, and that is all the above is controlled by natural processes and depend on the single source of energy affecting our world to modify it.The Left Ignores Newest Climate Science, http://bit.ly/2jUFALM, “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate”, http://bit.ly/2hhSi56 , “P. Gosselin: Yet Another Paper Shows “The Enormous Importance Of Solar Activity Fluctuations On Climate”, http://bit.ly/2iIFC5t

You may have noticed that for almost the last 2 decades, the earth is not been warming, even as the CO2 levels has increased to 410.28 ppm

Dr. Leslie Woodcock, a professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and analytical science,and former NASA scientist, said “The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”…

He added “Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.” “

One reason that Professor Woodcock is likely to be right is that the oceans of the world are the largest CO2 sinks another source saying The ocean stores 50 times more carbon dioxide than does the atmosphere,. As a temperature of the earth cools, the oceans absorb more CO2, but as it increases as it has been doing in the last approximately 400 years since the Maunder Minimum, it releases CO2 to the atmosphere. That is mostly where the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has come from, natural sources.This is exactly what the same source, quoting a ScienceDaily article says “Although our increased use of hydrocarbons also increases CO2 in the atmosphere, the evidence is very strong that it does not materially contribute to global warming, and it certainly is not a substantial cause. CO2 does not have the density of the clouds, or smoke, and does not reflect the sun’s rays or protect the earth from them like clouds. Our warmth comes from the sun.

It’s time, I think, that you find something new to worry about and that should be Global Cooling, as the sun has been in Solar Cycle 24 for some time now, and the number of sunspots are already falling off

, meaning that more cooling is in Earth’s future .In fact, National Geographic reported in 2011 that our sun was likely go into hibernation at what would have been the beginning of the next solar cycle,that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020. It’s the smallest cycle in 100 years,” NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center research scientist David Hathaway said during a recent press teleconference conducted by the Marshall Space Flight Center. Recently, the National Solar Observatory‘s Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona. They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun’s magnetic field won’t be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict. Astronomy Now reported in July 2015 that Professor V. Zharkova,(Northumbria University) presented a paper with conclusions that the world enter a Little Ice Age in 2030-2040

SSRC President John L. Casey, who worked as a consultant for NASA and was a White House space program adviser, has stated “We’re Heading Into a Long Cold Climate Era” , Similarly Piers Corbyn, the UK weather forecaster who has routinely beaten the Met office at their forecasts, says that we’ve already passed our peak in global temperatures, and are headed for a period of global cooling , and Mr. Corbyn goes on to explain how future Winters will now be Coldest in Centuries in England, Europe, and even America.

As far as your CO2 theory goes, here’s the latest from NOAA and NASA, regarding 2014 being the hottest year ever:

Former Harvard Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘According to NOAA, the probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 52%.
According to NASA, the probability that a different year than 2014 was the warmest one was 62%.’

It is more likely than not that the warmest year was a different one than 2014.”

Since man continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere didn’t you think that temperature should be much higher then it is today?

TreeParty, I used to be like you, thinking that mankind was destroying the planet. But then someone told me that Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park erupted several hundred thousand years before, throwing lava for hundred of miles around. I checked it out, and sure enough, it was true, and Old Faithful remains the worlds largest super volcano. Of course, we all know that the meteorite which struck the Yucatan Peninsula killing all the dinosaurs. Those facts were my Epiphany moments, when I started to do more digging on my own. I wonder if you will ever question your own ideology?

Finally, the last thing I have to ask you: Is there anything anybody could ever say, show, write, demonstrate, ask or explain in a blog or comment to a blog, that will make you change your mind?

If your answer is “No”, I suspect you have a “Congealed Mind as described here., so there’s no point in you and I and you engaging in any further debate.

But, I hope I am wrong and you are willing to engage in more debate. I have enjoyed it Correcting so many of your mistakes, so please continue.but please bring some real data to the discussion, rather than thisExtreme environmentalist dogma you spout .Also maybe perhaps you will provide a scientist or two willing to go on the record as Both of your beliefs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s