The Great Global Warming Hoax

This is a good read for those "looking for the truths" ....... and is written so that YOU can easilly understand the "science" that is presented in said. Sam

The Middlebury Community Network

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?


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

And the following is a summary of topics that were discussed. So, you can read the entire article or look over the items in the summary and scan the article for the one(s) that interest you.

Summary - Exactly what have we learned here?


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.

Click on the following url to see several graphs presented by Tom Nelson that the AGW (global warming) folks don't want you to see posted

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/search/label/graphs


,

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

So it was real, but in 1998, it magically stopped? Have you purchased a bridge in Brooklyn recently?

When I use a clearly biased and poorly referenced blog as "evidence", I get criticized for it. I wonder if you will receive the same treatment...

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

So it was real, but in 1998, it magically stopped? Have you purchased a bridge in Brooklyn recently?

When I use a clearly biased and poorly referenced blog as "evidence", I get criticized for it. I wonder if you will receive the same treatment...

TRC, it is only poorly referenced for people of your caliber because you refuse to read and understand the cited references. And my learned opinion as to why you do said is that you are mentally incapable of associating the data presented in the "reference" with the context of the article/post/blog that cited said "reference". Apparently your brain is "wired" to recognize each new paragraph, chapter or "reference" as a "brand new story" with absolutely no connection or association to any previous discussion.

And TRC, anyone who still believes in "magic" makes me question their intelligence. But anyway, to humor you, here is the cited proof of that "magical happening", to wit:


http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/search/label/graphs

TRC, please note that Linear Trend is trending to be cooler. And not magic, just f'ing facts.

TRC, I am pretty damn sure that all you Human Caused Global Warming believers "hang your hat and your reputation" on the Average Global Temperature that is calculated from all the temperature readings obtained from all the Temperature Recording Stations that exist all over the world. "DUH", that is why it is called "average Global Temperature".

But TRC, ..... what you "hat hangers" fail to realize, accept or acknowledge is that the world wide "sampling" of said temperatures is FUBAR to say the least. It is akin to a Political Pollster ....... conducting 98% of their polling in an overwhelming Democrat Precinct.

And TRC, even though I know that you will do your damnest, even by hook or by crook, ..... to prove me wrong on any issue, ..... I will still go ahead and present evidence/facts that prove my above accusations, to wit:

Now for those whom will likely say that "the USA only has 2% of the worlds area, so it really doesn't matter", I'd point out this graphic from NCDC which shows the distribution of weather stations that have mean temperature records going back to 1900. The USA makes up the lions share of the weather stations in the world with complete data sets spanning 100 years.



The USA data clearly makes up the bulk of the last century's worth of mean temperature data. And there are few candidates that span 100 years in many continents...

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/search/label/graphs

TRC, even a blind man could see from that map that 90+-% of all the "average temperatures readings" are obtained from Temperature Stations within the continental United States ...... and thus no way in hell would the average of all Temperature Stations readings throughout the world reflect an average global temperature.

Of course, I will not be surprised if my summation is too technical for you to comprehend. Or that when you can not dispute the evidence I present .... you will again post a CYA claim that you have never stated that you are a believer in Human Caused Global Warming. But you have never claimed to not being a believer in Human Caused Global Warming either. The truth is, you prefer to ignore the facts so that you can be a "fence straddler" to CYA.


.


.

Pick and choose only the evidence that suits you and liberally add insults.

Set up strawman arguments and kick them down.

Your blogger does the same thing. Try and follow his "extensive" list of references to some actual documentation.

Good stuff, that.

If we don't have enough data to "prove" that global warming is real (one of your opinions, I believe), how do we have enough to show that the "cooling trend" that "began in 1998" is real?

How do you explain that globally, 11 out of the past 13 years have been the hottest on record [linky clicky].

Fact, not fiction. Kind of casts doubt on the reality of that "cooling trend".

I don't ignore facts, Sammy. No future in it - I could never match your caliber.

Of course, you think cigarettes are filled with Vitamin C and stuff...

Well Terry RC I have learned from your posts that you are a bona fide scientist (with papers and all )

So I figure you probably go occasionally to meetings, conventions, etc. where other bona fide scientists are gathered.

So I would like to ask have you ever encountered any recognized scientists (with credentials) who deny the existence of global warming or the fact it is exacerbated by CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?

The anti-science crowd is always claiming opinion is "divided" amongst the scientific community.

But in the rare instances when they cite a source, even a non-scientist such as myself can recognize they dont have a clue.

Perhaps you saw the discussion on here recently where Terry H's cited source did not even comprehend the concept of percentages.?

Anyhow I just wondered if qualified naysayers are out there and whether they represent a significant percentage of scientists?

TerryRC wrote:
How do you explain that globally, 11 out of the past 13 years have been the hottest on record [linky clicky].

Fact, not fiction. Kind of casts doubt on the reality of that "cooling trend".

I don't ignore facts, Sammy. No future in it - I could never match your caliber.

GEEEEZUS, TRC, .... why would you make such an asinine statement like that ..... when you ignored "the facts" presented in the [linky clicky] reference you just cited? To wit:

The preliminary information for 2007 is based on climate data up to the end of November from networks of land-based weather stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continually collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS) of WMO’s 188 Members and several collaborating research institutions.

Oh, I know now why you “ignored that fact”, ……. it was presented in a different paragraph of that Science News article, …… and we all know you can’t remember from one paragraph to the next ….. what the hell the “connection” between the two are. Just a brand new “subject” to you, right TRC.

Here big boy, look at that map again that I previously posted, to wit:



and then strain you brain a little, if you can, and see if you can determine where the MAJORITY of those “land-based” temperature readings were collected from.

And I will give you a clue to help you out. It was NOT …. Canada, … Greenland, … Central America, ... South America, … Russia, … Africa, … Asia …. or Australia, ……. or all of them added together.

OH, and ps, TRC, iffen you ever figure out where the MAJORITY of those temperature readings were collected, …… you be sure to tell Sherman ……. because he adores your “scientific brilliance” and I am sure he will want to know whenever you learn something new, …. to wit:

sodbuster wrote:Well Terry RC I have learned from your posts that you are a bona fide scientist (with papers and all )

Yep siree, TRC, you be sure to tell Shermmy that the United Stated is the ultra primary source for determining the average temperature for the rest of the world.



.

Yep siree, TRC, you be sure to tell Shermmy that the United Stated is the ultra primary source for determining the average temperature for the rest of the world.

Gee, Sam. Sorry the other countries of the world don't have as much money to spend on research.

The temp readings ARE global, as they come from all over the world. More recent readings also include pack ice.

Just because the majority of them are from North America doesn't discount the argument. Ever heard of a weighted average?

So, Sammy. How are we in a cooling trend if 11 out of the past 13 have been the hottest on record?

The evidence that the earth is growing warmer is almost overwhelming. Climatologists, particularly the ice experts are turning up more evidence an almost a daily basis.

You never address any of this literal mountain of research.

You think a skeptic that has a blog and can make a few strawman arguments and Excel graphs can trump all of that.

Fine, but don't expect us to take you seriously (those of us that still do, anyway).

BTW, this statement doesn't address anything I have said:

GEEEEZUS, TRC, .... why would you make such an asinine statement like that ..... when you ignored "the facts" presented in the [linky clicky] reference you just cited?

To wit:The preliminary information for 2007 is based on climate data up to the end of November from networks of land-based weather stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continually collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHS) of WMO’s 188 Members and several collaborating research institutions.

That fact has zero to do with my statement that, globally, 11 out of the past 13 years have been the hottest on record (and the "cooling trend" that your blogger assures us that we are in is a dubious claim). In other words, another attempt at a strawman argument.

I expect nothing less...

Also, to answer sodbuster's argument, there is very little disagreement among climatologists on the issue of "is the planet getting hotter".