UN claims global warming 'proved beyond a doubt'...

Myth #1 - Temperatures are warmer today than ever in history.

The truth is we’re certain that temperatures were hotter than today in the past but how long ago we really don’t really know. The most popular temperature reconstructions are full of flawed math and data. Others don’t have enough verification to rely on them. Several show global temperatures 1000 years ago which are much higher than today and 3000 year old plants and trees have been found under retreating glaciers.

Myth #2 - There is a consensus among climatologists about global warming.

Most climatologists probably agree, but climatology is a small field funded by government organizations. Those who disagree openly, receive little funding but they do still exist. Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people recognize the issue isn’t settled.



Myth #3 - We will cross a tipping point and be unable to recover

This theory has little evidence to support it. To believe in this, you have to believe several things: we are warmer than ever, CO2 reserves will be released from massive ground melting and CO2 will heat the earth so much the process will spiral and melt all the ice. There is substantial evidence that the earth was warmer several times as recently as 3000 years ago yet there was no mass flooding. There was no massive release of CO2 recorded.

Myth #4 - Global warming will be universally destructive.

Global warming has presided over some of the best times in human history. Instead of mass famine we get massive food surplus. Instead of horrible drought and extinctions we get lush forests, increased plant growth and more inhabitable space for all creatures.

Myth #5 - CO2 is a pollutant

Carbon dioxide is plant food. Plants grow faster and more food is available to the critters of earth. Excessive carbon dioxide would be a bad thing for sure but in the last 100 years it is said that CO2 increased from 270 to 388 parts per million. This is an increase of 0.000118 or 0.0118%. But there is some substantial question about the accuracy of this number, numerous CO2 results were scrapped from 1900 to 1940 on the basis that something was wrong with them. In one report, every test scrapped showed higher historic levels than are comfortable for Global Warming scientists.

Myth #6 - CO2 rise was created by man.

While this makes sense at first, the jury is still out on this conclusion as well. The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce. The reality is we just don’t know.

Myth #7 - CO2 will continue to rise indefinitely.

Feedback mechanisms in absorption will hold CO2 to a maximum level at some point. I would cite some numbers but I don’t believe science understands this any more than they understand historic temperature.

Myth #8 - The UN IPCC is trying to save the planet from global warming

The UN IPCC was formed before global warming was identified for the purpose of discovering if man made climate change was true, what are the damages that will occur as a result of this change and what can we do about it. The IPCC would cease to exist if any of the three questions were answered in the negative i.e no global warming, no damage from global warming and nothing we can do about it. They would loose their jobs.

Another important point about the IPCC is that if either of the last two questions had simple answers they would also be defunded. For example in the second question, if global warming was primarily a good thing (which it appears to be) there would be no money spent. For the third question, if the answer to solve global warming was simple and easy there would be no money spent on the IPCC. Governments always need more money and power so it should be no surprise that the IPCC concluded, global warming is man made, there will be huge planet crushing disaster and it is very expensive to fix. The IPCC is in this for other reasons.

Myth #9 - The science supports the IPCC conclusions

The IPCC is a political body which employs scientist to make a report. The politicians get final say on what goes into the report. Scientists who actually believe in global warming regularly warn the IPCC that their conclusions are the most extreme of the possibilities and to tone down their language. These scientists are regularly dismissed by the politicians.

Myth #10 - The IPCC is an unbiased source which doesn’t direct funding to research

This is false, while the IPCC doesn’t direct funding, it has subsidiary partners as part of the UN who direct funding according to IPCC recommendations. This funding is administered through an unbelievably complex network of organizations which penetrate national boundaries across the world. I tried to map it once, after 8 hours research I had hundreds of organizations all interconnected for the same goal. — Prove global warming is true or cease to have jobs.

Scientists who don’t support the government are naturally weeded out by subcommittees looking for specific evidence i.e, new directives for understanding tree ring temperature curves will always go to scientists who believe trees can actually reproduce temp and not to reasonable scientists who study trees but know otherwise.

The scientists who have reached the top of the IPCC are typically far left socialists who support much more than high taxation for global warming. These are the same people who declared consensus, and doom. The real purpose of the IPCC is government control and more money, that is why the worst science with the most extreme positions such as Mann08 rise to the top. Peer scientists accept these papers because the ends justify the means and they also like to have jobs.

bmd wrote:Wow! Jeff Id (whoever he is) vs. an entire scientific field. Gee, I wonder who I'll believe...

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

bmd wrote:Wow! Jeff Id (whoever he is) vs. an entire scientific field. Gee, I wonder who I'll believe...

sodbuster wrote:From the original post...

"Excessive carbon dioxide would be a bad thing for sure but in the last 100 years it is said that CO2 increased from 270 to 388 parts per million. This is an increase of 0.000118 or 0.0118%."

Looks like somebody didnt do that well in math, so they decided to become an anti-science advocate.

bmd wrote:Wow! Jeff Id (whoever he is) vs. an entire scientific field. Gee, I wonder who I'll believe...

The Middlebury Community Network

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

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

2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.

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

4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.

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

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

7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.

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

9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.

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

11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.

12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.

13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.

14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.

15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.

18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.

Armon Ayers wrote:

sodbuster wrote:From the original post...

"Excessive carbon dioxide would be a bad thing for sure but in the last 100 years it is said that CO2 increased from 270 to 388 parts per million. This is an increase of 0.000118 or 0.0118%."

Looks like somebody didnt do that well in math, so they decided to become an anti-science advocate.

You failed math, didn't you, Mr. Science?

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:

sodbuster wrote:From the original post...

"Excessive carbon dioxide would be a bad thing for sure but in the last 100 years it is said that CO2 increased from 270 to 388 parts per million. This is an increase of 0.000118 or 0.0118%."

Looks like somebody didnt do that well in math, so they decided to become an anti-science advocate.

You failed math, didn't you, Mr. Science?

Word problem time!!

Q. What proportion of 270 is 118?

A. 0.437 or 43.7% In other words, a 43.7% increase.

If you got this problem right, you get to go on to the seventh grade. If you got it wrong, you may have to consider moving to West Virginia. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

Armon Ayers wrote:

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:

sodbuster wrote:From the original post...

"Excessive carbon dioxide would be a bad thing for sure but in the last 100 years it is said that CO2 increased from 270 to 388 parts per million. This is an increase of 0.000118 or 0.0118%."

Looks like somebody didnt do that well in math, so they decided to become an anti-science advocate.

You failed math, didn't you, Mr. Science?

Word problem time!!

Q. What proportion of 270 is 118?

A. 0.437 or 43.7% In other words, a 43.7% increase.

If you got this problem right, you get to go on to the seventh grade. If you got it wrong, you may have to consider moving to West Virginia. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

Where did you go to Degrade School, bm'd?

Word problem time!!

Q. What proportion of 270 is 118?

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:

sodbuster wrote:From the original post...

"Excessive carbon dioxide would be a bad thing for sure but in the last 100 years it is said that CO2 increased from 270 to 388 parts per million. This is an increase of 0.000118 or 0.0118%."

Looks like somebody didnt do that well in math, so they decided to become an anti-science advocate.

You failed math, didn't you, Mr. Science?

Word problem time!!

Q. What proportion of 270 is 118?

A. 0.437 or 43.7% In other words, a 43.7% increase.

If you got this problem right, you get to go on to the seventh grade. If you got it wrong, you may have to consider moving to West Virginia. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

SheikBen wrote:

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:

sodbuster wrote:From the original post...

"Excessive carbon dioxide would be a bad thing for sure but in the last 100 years it is said that CO2 increased from 270 to 388 parts per million. This is an increase of 0.000118 or 0.0118%."

Looks like somebody didnt do that well in math, so they decided to become an anti-science advocate.

You failed math, didn't you, Mr. Science?

Word problem time!!

Q. What proportion of 270 is 118?

A. 0.437 or 43.7% In other words, a 43.7% increase.

If you got this problem right, you get to go on to the seventh grade. If you got it wrong, you may have to consider moving to West Virginia. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

While I must admit that math is not my back. A 43.7% increase is only significant if the base number is significant to start with. If I am making 2 cents a week a 43.7 % increase is negligable--if I am making 50,000 dollars a week it is significant, indeed.

SheikBen wrote:If both 270 and 388 parts per million both constitute negligable [sic] amounts of CO2,...

SheikBen wrote:...then the increase, no matter how significant as a percentage, is of no importance. If the 43.7% increase is a big deal, one still must answer why it is necessarily the work of man.

SheikBen wrote:Anyways the math is contorted by the one scientist in one direction and by you in another. Both of you know your math and are framing the discussion in a way that makes your case. Of course you can do this, but don't accuse your opponents of being dumber than they are.

SheikBen wrote:Anyways the math is contorted by the one scientist in one direction and by you in another.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Anyways the math is contorted by the one scientist in one direction and by you in another.

In the instant matter, how is bmd's math "contorted"?

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Anyways the math is contorted by the one scientist in one direction and by you in another.

In the instant matter, how is bmd's math "contorted"?

sodbuster wrote:If it increased from 270 to 388 that is an increase of 43.7 %.

The original post said it was an increase of .0118 %

That is a pretty big error.

Even if you have decided there is no global warming.

Maybe there are some reliable scientific sources out there challenging the existence of global warming, but this does not appear to be one of them.

Maybe you should just stick to anecdotal stories about how the winters now seem colder than they were 50 years ago....

bmd wrote:

SheikBen wrote:If both 270 and 388 parts per million both constitute negligable [sic] amounts of CO2,...

That is a completely invalid assumption. If carbon dioxide levels were to somehow drop to zero, the entire surface of the earth would be well below freezing.

ohio county wrote:270 is what percent of one million? 388 is what percent of one million? The correct answer is the difference between the two and not the difference between 388 and 270.