Those from the climate change religion say we should listen to the scientists.


Quote:

Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: “Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World” Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University. In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on: “Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.” From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics. There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge. Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy. Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried). Data Falsification When arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too). But now we have Nakamura. The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com. Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.” The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.” Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess. Nakamura on CO2 He writes: “The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.” Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd. More here- https://electroverse.net/another-climate-scientist-with-impeccable-credentials-breaks-ranks/

Those from the climate change religion say the earth has warmed 0.5 deg C. I have doubts on the accuracy of this half degree increase.

Lots of scientists say those from the climate change religion are fudging the numbers.  ::)

Quote:

There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts in letter to the United Nations The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter: A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter: 1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. 2. Warming is far slower than predicted. 3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models. 4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide. 5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters. 6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. 7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic. MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”? Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.” https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

It's the UN pushing this climate change religion.


Quote:

50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns · States urged to prepare for victims of climate change · Natural disasters displace more people than wars David Adam, environment correspondent Wed 12 Oct 2005 23.32 AEST https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

Perhaps the UN should stick to making the Saudis the chair on human rights which is another example of how useless they really are.  ::)

Quote:

4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

This is where they lost me.
No scientist would make such a ridiculous statement
A scientists knows that too much of any substance makes it a problem.

I call BS on the so called "500 experts"
They are just mining and fossil fuel company ring ins

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2019 at 9:10pm:

No scientist would make such a ridiculous statement A scientists knows that too much of any substance makes it a problem.

Which of course does not necessarily make it pollution. And that leads on to the next question - At what level does CO2 become pollution. ;)

If you were to believe wiki it is - "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. "

Now seeing CO2 is part of the natural environment it can't be pollution.

My reading is that the data before 1980 is untrustworthy, but after its trustworthy.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2019 at 9:10pm:

Quote: 4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide. This is where they lost me. No scientist would make such a ridiculous statement A scientists knows that too much of any substance makes it a problem. I call BS on the so called "500 experts" They are just mining and fossil fuel company ring ins

Biology is a branch of science all biologists will agree CO2 is essential for plants to grow.

The fastest and most efficient way of growing plants is hydroponics,  Gerry Harvey has an indoor hydro greenhouse on the NSW central coast producing cucumbers.


Quote:

CO2 is an odorless, invisible, and non-flammable gas. It is also safe for humans in the maximum concentrations recommended for plant growth. The average level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 PPM (parts per million). If the level decreases down below 200 PPM in an enclosed growing area, plant growth slows to a halt. Through the years of testing and research, the optimum enrichment level of CO2 for plant growth has been agreed to be about 1500 PPM. With CO2 enrichment, under good conditions, plant growth rates and flowering will increase 20-100%. CO2 can be used from seedling right through harvest. *The air already has about 400 PPM (thanks Rich) so you only need to add 1100 PPM more to get the optimum level of 1500 PPM. https://www.hydroponics.net/learn/co2_calculator.php

Research has proven the optimal levels of CO2 for faster plant growth is nearly 4 times higher than atmospheric levels.  :)

Lots of CO2 generators for sale for agriculture ::) ::)
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=co2+generator+for+sale&ei=xKCUXf_zO5re9QOHybToAw&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwj_5ZaR0v3kAhUab30KHYckDT04ChDy0wMIrwE&biw=1093&bih=502

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 11:18am:

My reading is that the data before 1980 is untrustworthy, but after its trustworthy.

Be nice if those from the climate change religion would stop fudging the numbers and stick to facts.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-28-at-6.41.45-AM.gif

lee wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 11:15am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 2nd, 2019 at 9:10pm: No scientist would make such a ridiculous statement A scientists knows that too much of any substance makes it a problem. Which of course does not necessarily make it pollution. And that leads on to the next question - At what level does CO2 become pollution. ;) If you were to believe wiki it is - "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. " Now seeing CO2 is part of the natural environment it can't be pollution.

So now you are playing stupid games of semantics again

Using your ridiculous logic an oil spill wouldn't be pollution because oil is "natural"  ;)

fail again lee. You are hopeless

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 12:02pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Oct 3rd, 2019 at 11:18am: My reading is that the data before 1980 is untrustworthy, but after its trustworthy. Be nice if those from the climate change religion would stop fudging the numbers and stick to facts. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-28-at-6.41.45-AM.gif

You do realise that USA temperatures aren't Global temperatures don't you  ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 4:01pm:

So now you are playing stupid games of semantics again

Science is about 100% truth. Semantics is about 100% accuracy. But of course you can tell us it is really only 97% accurate ;)


The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 4:01pm:

Using your ridiculous logic an oil spill wouldn't be pollution because oil is "natural"

CO2 occurs naturally from burning - Coal mines, peat bogs etc.


But oil spills do not occur naturally. Seeps however do.  Your logic is really illogical.

A major fail.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 4:04pm:

You do realise that USA temperatures aren't Global temperatures don't you

You do realise that the USA is a major source of climate data. Besides which the US is a microcosm of the globe, and so should reflect AGW. Unless you mean the world is really having regional warming, but that misstates the meme. There are other areas suffering regional cooling. ;)

You do realise the US forms a large part of guesstimating global temperatures?

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 4:04pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 3rd, 2019 at 12:02pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Oct 3rd, 2019 at 11:18am: My reading is that the data before 1980 is untrustworthy, but after its trustworthy. Be nice if those from the climate change religion would stop fudging the numbers and stick to facts. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Screen-Shot-2016-12-28-at-6.41.45-AM.gif You do realise that USA temperatures aren't Global temperatures don't you  ;D ;D ;D

US records are 1000 times better than so called global records...what ever they are. Corruption of data by methods like and including homogenisation is disgraceful. Stop it now, we know you are corrupt.

Bullshit to extreme weather, bullshit to accelerated sea level rise, bullshit to co2 being classified as a pollutant.  Graft and corruption from gravy train state funded troughers in the completely discredited scientific community surrounding climate.

lee wrote on Oct 5^th, 2019 at 2:22pm:

the US is a microcosm of the globe, and so should reflect AGW.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You are deluding yourself lee. The USA makes up an area of 6% of the worlds landmass. Or 2% of the worlds total surface area. You can't seriously call that a "microcosm of the globe". To claim that temperature readings restricted to such a tiny area can be representative of the globe shows that you have absolutely no idea.

It's also interesting that you are contradicting past comments you have made that the earth IS actually warming (but that it's too difficult to work out if it is human induced).

lee, if you are going to post crap, at least try and get your story straight or you just look like a fool.




Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2019 at 12:02pm:

Be nice if those from the climate change religion would stop fudging the numbers and stick to facts. Quote: US Data since 1895 fail to show Warming Trend. Published January 26 1989 It is based on temperature and precipatation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987

So you post a 30 year old article about USA temperatures and this is supposed to impress us.
FAIL


Rider wrote on Oct 5^th, 2019 at 4:23pm:

US records are 1000 times better than so called global records...what ever they are. Corruption of data by methods like and including homogenisation is disgraceful. Stop it now, we know you are corrupt. Bullshit to extreme weather, bullshit to accelerated sea level rise, bullshit to co2 being classified as a pollutant.  Graft and corruption from gravy train state funded troughers in the completely discredited scientific community surrounding climate.

Cue the loony conspiracy theorists.

The fact that nearly all the worlds glaciers are in retreat is incontrovertible proof that the Earth is warming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 10:21am:

Cue the loony conspiracy theorists.

Is someone who reports catastrophic cold weather events a loony conspiracy theorist?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 11:32am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 10:21am: Cue the loony conspiracy theorists. Is someone who reports catastrophic cold weather events a loony conspiracy theorist?

No. They are just ignorant

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 11:51am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 11:32am: The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 10:21am: Cue the loony conspiracy theorists. Is someone who reports catastrophic cold weather events a loony conspiracy theorist? No. They are just ignorant

Come on - you're just as loony as those you call loony.
You either take a balanced and fair approach or you don't.
All evidence must be considered -
extreme cold - record cold weather all around the world
can't just be ignored.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 10:21am:

You are deluding yourself lee. The USA makes up an area of 6% of the worlds landmass. Or 2% of the worlds total surface area. You can't seriously call that a "microcosm of the globe"..

Poor petal. So per your pronouncements the USA is specifically NOT representative as a microcosm of the globe. We can therefore ignore Australia at 5%. And then the there the other approximately 190 other countries that are also not a microcosm of the globe. Therefore we should simply ignore them and concentrate on the remaining three namely Russia, Canada and China. Ignoring Antarctica because we have no widespread measurements, mostly around edges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area

Thanks for the daily laugh. ;D ;D ;D ;D

NOAA gives maps where the grey areas show where there are no readings.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201908-t.png

The gray areas denote areas with no temperature readings.


The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 10:21am:

It's also interesting that you are contradicting past comments you have made that the earth IS actually warming (but that it's too difficult to work out if it is human induced).

Really? Where have I said that? How much, if any, is AGW, how much, if any, natural? ;)



The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 10:21am:

The fact that nearly all the worlds glaciers are in retreat is incontrovertible proof that the Earth is warming

It is more a reflection on lack of precipitation. Glaciers are indeed "rivers of ice", they flow downstream. No precipitation means there is no renewal at the headwaters.

And only "nearly"? That suggests that if it is solely warming as the cause it is regional rather than global.

You do need to try harder. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That is what annoys me about the climate "debate" -
if we can call it a debate?

Both sides seem to take evidence that suits their argument -
no one is being fair about it by
presenting all the evidence.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 11:54am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 11:51am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 11:32am: The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 10:21am: Cue the loony conspiracy theorists. Is someone who reports catastrophic cold weather events a loony conspiracy theorist? No. They are just ignorant Come on - you're just as loony as those you call loony. You either take a balanced and fair approach or you don't. All evidence must be considered - extreme cold - record cold weather all around the world can't just be ignored.

Bobby, how many times do I have to tell you?

LOCAL WEATHER EVENTS ARE NOT GLOBAL CLIMATE

You are just making your self look like a fool

lee wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

Poor petal. blah blah blah You do need to try harder.

No lee, each one of your points is BS and I'm sure you are quite aware of it.

Poor petal. can't face reality. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 12:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 11:54am: The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 11:51am: Bobby. wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 11:32am: The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 6th, 2019 at 10:21am: Cue the loony conspiracy theorists. Is someone who reports catastrophic cold weather events a loony conspiracy theorist? No. They are just ignorant Come on - you're just as loony as those you call loony. You either take a balanced and fair approach or you don't. All evidence must be considered - extreme cold - record cold weather all around the world can't just be ignored. Bobby, how many times do I have to tell you? LOCAL WEATHER EVENTS ARE NOT GLOBAL CLIMATE You are just making your self look like a fool

Local weather events are not the same as
extreme cold - record cold weather all around the world

Climate science: there's no need for climate protests in China because China is already communist...