ClimateGate busts things wide open

[papafarang]

give a plant more CO2 and it will grow more rapidly, it will also grow bigger, produce more fruit yippee... it's will also outgrow it's natural size and dominate other plants ,tree will be huge and become unable to cope with higher temp and will have a tendency to fall over with a slight wind , new forms of weeds will be able to out grow our food crops, and then when they die they all release the CO2 back into the atmosphere along with methane . plus just to top it off CO2 makes no difference if the plant can't take higher or lower temps, can't survive as the water supply and NPK have not increased, without extra NPK and water CO2 will make no difference at all. plus the dimming effect of particles reduces sunlight . nothing better than to listen to people who don't have a clue what their on about. it's like saying double you daily food intake because it's good for you, drink 10 cans of red bull a day because it gives you energy . can you imagine what would happen if they put every single human on growth hormones.
all this bollox about higher temps and CO2 on the planet in pre history being much higher , well how well did the human race do back then 7 billion people to feed and water.
man made environmental disaster classic
https://youtu.be/CM3ZHMBhP2k

[Lone Star]

Solar farms and wind farms destroying the rural landscape of residents.

So much for that.

Shocking result coming from the Ultra-LIB state of California.

[Lone Star]

The Myth that "97% of Scientists Agree"

Heard that before? 555 Over and over from Believers. It is their default position on everything related to warming, cooling, climate change, blah blah blah -- whatever they want to call it next.

They have been caught so many times using fake numbers and fake models and fake narratives that it’s impossible to take them seriously. If they were telling the truth, nothing would have to be made up.

John Cook runs the Believer website SkepticalScience.com. It is a collection of arguments trying to defend PREDICTIONS of catastrophic climate change. It is the same John Cook who started the myth. His full quote is as follows: "Over 97 percent endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause."

This is a fairly clear statement -- 97% endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause -- main in common usage meaning more than half or even more.

But when you drill down into Cook's paper, you find that this is not the case.

First of all, this 97% comes from the papers that Cook surveyed, NOT 97% of ALL scientists. The evidence contained in Cook's own writing is that only a handful of those he surveyed endorse the view that the Earth is warming up and "human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause."

Cook refers to this group as those with "explicit endorsement with quantification" (quantification meaning 50% or more).

However, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category. When the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, it was calculated that only 1.6% explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50% of global warming or more.

So from where does this huge 97% come?

Cook created another category called "explicit endorsement WITHOUT quantification". These were papers in which the author, and it was admitted by Cook, did NOT provide ANY percentage of warming caused by man. Another category labeled by Cook as "implicit endorsement", was for papers that ONLY IMPLIED that there is some man-made global warming -- and the authors do NOT quantify it at all.

In other words, Cook created categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly did NOT -- and then lumped them all together to come up with his 97%.

The 97% claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public and scientists who disagree with Cook and disagree with the man-made climate-change narrative.

Scientists whose papers were used in Cook's survey have regularly objected to how their papers were mischaracterized. One stated that only 10 of his 122 papers were used by Cook. Half of the 10 papers considered were rated incorrectly. Four of 5 of those papers were rated as endorsing Cook's narrative rather than being neutral. All wrong according to the author.

Think about how many times you hear that 97% or some similar figure thrown around. It’s propagated by people who stand to gain financially from that ideological agenda.

So on the heels of all of these revelations about the 97% Myth, there is a new survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. A strong majority (much more than half) of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

According to the survey, only 36% of respondents fit the "Comply with Kyoto" model. The scientists in this group "express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."

The survey notes that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

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?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate."

So the next time you start to hear "97% of scientists ...", you can start laughing out loud before they even complete the sentence. You will be safe in the knowledge that you haven't been indoctrinated and fooled.

There is now a video -- with sources and the words of the scientists who were misquoted -- that mirrors my essay from the recent past.

97% of scientist do NOT agree. It's bunk.

It is very well done. TRUTH always wins.

[tinpeeba]

Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard': scientists

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-clim ... SKCN1QE1ZU

[Lone Star]

https://youtu.be/3PWtaackIJU
Youtube bb code not working here for some reason.

"We’re All Gonna Die" doesn't get it. Nobody is buying it, but LIBs keep selling it.

[TJ]

While we are discussing the many green frauds:

BIOMASS: ANOTHER “GREEN” FRAUD
I would have said that nothing could exceed the folly of wind and solar energy, but biomass may come close. This Vox article is headlined: “Europe’s renewable energy policy is built on burning American trees.” You no doubt have heard of “biomass,” but likely don’t know what it actually means. As the headline suggests, it mostly means American trees.

In the lowland forests of the American southeast, loblolly pines and cypress trees are grabbing carbon dioxide from the air right now. Using power from the sun, they release the oxygen and bind the carbon, building trunks, barks, and leaves.

But much of that carbon won’t stay there. As it turns out, millions of tons of wood from these forests each year are being shipped across the Atlantic, and burned in power plants in countries like the UK and the Netherlands, in the name of slowing climate change.

This “green” energy story is all about economics:

n 2009, the EU committed itself to 20 percent renewable energy by 2020, and put biomass on the renewables list. Several countries, like the United Kingdom, subsidized the biomass industry, creating a sudden market for wood not good enough for the timber industry. In the United States, Canada, and Eastern Europe, crooked trees, bark, treetops, and sawdust have been pulped, pressed into pellets, and heat-dried in kilns. By 2014, biomass accounted for 40 percent of the EU’s renewable energy, by far the largest source. By 2020, it’s projected to make up 60 percent, and the US plans to follow suit.

What goes on a “renewable” list depends entirely on political influence. Nuclear energy isn’t on the list, even though it emits no carbon dioxide. Hydroelectric isn’t on many “renewable” lists, either.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... -fraud.php

[Lone Star]

While we are discussing the many green frauds:

. . .

What goes on a “renewable” list depends entirely on political influence. Nuclear energy isn’t on the list, even though it emits no carbon dioxide. Hydroelectric isn’t on many “renewable” lists, either.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/ ... -fraud.php

Excellent find.

And there you go. It's all bullshiggity.

[rick]

Hmm, a 5 year old video to justify that global warming isn't a problem ....... since then, the 4 warmest years on record. It also claims that wind and solar make up just 2% of world energy supply, maybe true over 5 years ago, not today. About 5%, but exact UP TO DATE data not easy to find. Wind and solar are now nearly as important as Hydropower. And of course, much more significant for electricity production. Hydropower provides 16% of electricity, so wind and solar Might provide up to about 14% (this is capacity, not everything is working all the time). Also wind and solar capacity doubles every 3 or 4 years, so need the latest data. For instance, renewables provided 27.9% of electricity in 2017 for the UK - a doubling in 4 years.

Global warming not a problem? Tell that to Australia, which has been hit rather hard this year - massive wild life deaths, drought, floods, and warmest summer on record.

But yes some people are too alarmist. I say do not pay much attention to claims about what will happen in the future, UNLESS this is extrapolated from the changes we have seen over the last 50 years or so. Yes, some crops will benefit from higher temperatures and more CO2, but many will not.

Also the end result of climate change locally is hard to predict. You will probably get higher average temperatures, but a few places are getting colder. You may get more rain, or less. And you may get more extreme weather events. The only certainties are rising sea levels (a very slow event) and change.

Ah, just seen the new post about biomass. Seems some just do not get it. The whole point is that it is renewable - you are just releasing CO2 which was taken from the air. Better than burning coal. Of course, you need to do this on a managed basis, so that the wood you remove is replaced, Unfortunately rapacious logging companies just want to make a fast buck.

And while we are at it, have you seen about the damage the Virginia coal industry does to the environment? Water pollution is so gross the locals have to import all their drinking water, or even all water. The water is extremely acid and full of minerals, often toxic.

[Lone Star]

Hmm, a 5 year old video to justify that global warming isn't a problem ....... since then, the 4 warmest years on record. It also claims that wind and solar make up just 2% of world energy supply, maybe true over 5 years ago, not today. About 5%, but exact UP TO DATE data not easy to find. Wind and solar are now nearly as important as

. . .

4 or 5 years is weather.

What is stated in the video is true today.

Who said climate change isn't a problem???? Not even the video made that claim.

[rick]

OK, at the end it says climate change is a problem, just not so important as other issues. But it spent the previous 5 minutes suggesting it wasn't an issue, because less people are dying in disasters! And saying that renewables are insignificant - which was borderline 5 years ago, and definitely not today. In the UK, now more important than coal. Same in at least 30 other countries.

One year is weather. When you get 3 or more years with the same changes, statistically unlikely. Time to find out why. Those 4 years are part of a trend which has been happening for at least 30 years. When i was at school, we were told that C02 was about 320 ppm. Now 410 ppm. Now that is significant, and that CO2 levels have never been over 300 ppm for the previous 400,000 years (maybe longer).

[Lone Star]

OK, at the end it says climate change is a problem, just not so important as other issues. But it spent the previous 5 minutes suggesting it wasn't an issue, because less people are dying in disasters! And saying that renewables are insignificant - which was borderline 5 years ago, and definitely not today. In the UK, now more important than coal. Same in at least 30 other countries.

One year is weather. When you get 3 or more years with the same changes, statistically unlikely. Time to find out why. Those 4 years are part of a trend which has been happening for at least 30 years. When i was at school, we were told that C02 was about 320 ppm. Now 410 ppm. Now that is significant, and that CO2 levels have never been over 300 ppm for the previous 400,000 years (maybe longer).

You and the resident Chief Believer will disagree. When I brought up an 11 year tropical storm cycle, he just laughed and laughed. Weather.

Believers need to get together.

[Lone Star]

More alarmism. Remember?

That good ole good-for-not-a-damn-thing UN.

We're all gonna die!

[Doodoo]

Alarmism is GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since 1998 the USofA power production has increased from 3620TWh to 4177TWh in 2018 An increase of 557TWt
The amount captured by Renewable supplies in 2018 is 17.5% up from 11.6% in 1998

So if no one back then was yelling or pulling the alarm then no one would have done anything. But they did and someone listened

Rather they would have just plodded along as usual. Just like Stalin liked the Lincoln Continental and started producing then in the 1930's. Since no one said anything (Alarmists were not allowed or they went you know where) they were still producing the same thing in the 1950's same style same colors and so one


As for the start of the UN which replaced the League of nations was DRUM ROLL PLEASE

"The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization to replace the ineffective League of Nations began under the aegis of the US State Department in 1939.[1]"
I don't understand why you are saying yourself as an American you are good-for-not-a-damn-thing

[Lone Star]

Climate Change in 12 Minutes

Very informative.

[Lone Star]

Interesting article I ran across the other day by Dr. William Lippincott. He is a retired environment scientist whose inferences are based on extensive literature research on the mechanisms of climate variability.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... th_it.html

Climate Change Theory: What's Wrong with it?

On the other hand, we hear a lot these days about consensus, skepticism, and denial. Warmists often cite the “97-percent consensus” that manmade climate change is true and “settled.” This claim stems from a single study of article abstracts dealing with climate. The study suffers from a number of serious method flaws and has been roundly debunked. A more reasonable conclusion from the study is that 3% of the abstracts support manmade warming, not 97%. In reality the science is not at all settled.

Yes, it's myth. The science is not settled.

Lippincott also takes the UN and the IPCC to task.

The scientific arm of Agenda 21 is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which name telegraphs its staff of bureaucrats. IPCC has published Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) based on existing refereed science papers. One of IPCC’s noteworthy accomplishments has been to assure that its SPMs are unencumbered by underlying technical detail. Translation: the SPMs say whatever the bureaucrats want them to.

Lippincott also cites quotes from these world bureaucrats that give some insight into their goals.

Mr. Strong believed that pending environmental disaster required a globalist solution. His thinking was bold and not necessarily restricted to scientific inference:
“… in order to save the planet, [a group of world leaders] decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Later on, German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III Mitigation of Climate Change, opined:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy, … We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” (Philosophy and position on climate change)

And more recently, Christiana Figueres, a former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and a leader of the 2015 Paris Accords said in an official UN press release:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

In summary:

Wait a minute! You mean to tell us we’ve been pouring tens of billions down a climate change rat hole for a couple of decades and what you really want to do is screw up the economy? We’ve been robbed!

Redistributing the wealth of the world -- another grand socialist "income inequality" fix. This time among countries.

[Doodoo]

I would hardly call this gentleman an expert in environmental issues Dr. William Lippincott
After inserting his name in the magic box there is ONE ARTICLE with his name attached. He personally has done no scientific research just read a bunch of books or articles I guess, maybe sat at Starbucks also or Tim Hortons depending on where he is from (extensive literature research). I could get my daughter or son to do the same and come out with statements about Frozen, Pink Ponies, Captain Marvel as they would have done the same, extensive literature research.

I wouldn't give this guy the time of day as a resource
On with the show

[jackspratt]

The good Dr Lippincott is a contributor to 2 conservative blogs, and is described thus in the respective publications:

Dr. William Lippincott is a retired environment scientist. His inferences are based on extensive literature research on the mechanisms of climate variability, a task open to any student of the scientific method.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... th_it.html

William Lippincott

William Lippincott is a retired environmental consultant. He taught genetics and crop improvement at the National University of Guatemala before working in the environmental and IT disciplines in private industry.

https://www.claremont.org/crb/contributor-list/2300/

The differences are quite glaring. You can draw your own conclusions as to his qualifications and credibility.

[Lone Star]

Yes!

It's proper to trash Lippincott because he quoted UN IPCC folks that revealed their intentions.

Yes, Lippincott is a bad, bad man. 555

Lippincott also cites quotes from these world bureaucrats that give some insight into their goals.

Mr. Strong believed that pending environmental disaster required a globalist solution. His thinking was bold and not necessarily restricted to scientific inference:
“… in order to save the planet, [a group of world leaders] decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Later on, German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III Mitigation of Climate Change, opined:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy, … We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” (Philosophy and position on climate change)

And more recently, Christiana Figueres, a former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and a leader of the 2015 Paris Accords said in an official UN press release:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Yeah, that bad, bad Lippincott. He shouldn't be quoting these people.

Plan C vs Lippincott on display. 55555

[jackspratt]

That seems to be a pretty frenzied response, LS.

Can you point out where I "trashed" Lippincott?

[Lone Star]

. . .

Hint: If you see a quote box similar to the above, then it's directed toward you.

Have a great weekend!