also remember that the model developed at East Anglia which was used to 'prove' global warming and generate the hockey stick graph will only work on one data set, and that was the data set prepared by East Anglia

also remember the emails that were leaked between two researchers warning others that they had to parse the collected data to get rid of data that would cause the model to fail and not show 'proof'

and last but not least, there are dozens of photos on the web that show the monitoring stations that were set up by the researchers to collect data ... they're hysterical

There still is a website called Surfacestations.org that had all the photos and other information of USHCN sites. Its a shell of its former self because it was hacked years ago. At one time from this site I collected over 50 photos from sites that were set up for positive bias. I mean stupid shit. I had four photos where these official sights were set up on roof tops. Set up within a few feet of AC units, and at airports next to runways. Of the 1200 US stations I think that's enough to skew the dataset. Of course you get the standard line oh the bias in corrected in the final data. Really? How? What does it say about your scientific methodology that you have to "correct" measurement? Also, the lead author of the Hockey Stick Michael Mann refuses to release or turn over his work for court cases or replication. His deformation suit against Tim Ball was thrown out of a Vancouver court because Ball said give me Mann's data and I'll prove it incorrect. Mann refused to provide his work during discovery and the court tossed the case. Mann should have charged with contempt in my opinion. He filed the suit, and then refused to cooperate.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:
The whole current “climate change” mantra is based on “We should have polar ice caps and glaciers”.
What “science” is this crap based on? Because they’ve been there as long as we can remember?

Under the so called “permafrost” there are trees and grass. It was a freaking swamp!!
That it might return to a swamp in God only knows how many years is hardly cause for concern.
So the temps go up, oceans may rise and flood low areas. This will not happen overnight while you sleep.
PEOPLE WILL JUST MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND! If it gets hot enough you could grow corn and soybeans in areas that are currently WAY too cold today. Big deal.

What concerns me more is the air being poisoned and the oceans being used as a dumping ground, ESPECIALLY by Asia. The amount of various crap that is already there is bad enough but Asia isn’t about to stop in our lifetimes. It just isn’t profitable for them to do otherwise.
The current lefty push if for CONTROL, not climate.

Great post, and I agree 100%. Climate change has always happened, and it is happening again now. It does not really matter why it is happening. It matters that we plan for it, as we would want to plan for anything else that might affect us. I imagine that is why our military is planning for it. This post is not about CO2. This is about long term financial planning, especially regarding real estate. Just ask the insurance companies. They are 100% planning for it.

https://media.defense.gov/2019...ANGE-REPORT-2019.PDF

https://www.insurancejournal.c...019/06/13/529201.htm

for all the "science" in the global warming / climate change cult, the focus is consistently on the need to control CO2, and therefore industry and the economy of the US (skipping the other major emitters such as China and India).

I have yet to see real intellectual curiosity from the CO2 based change true believers in things like the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) (a 60 -80 year change in the Atlantic temps, also linked to El Nino/La Nina cycles, and therefore "climate" change), or in the Milankovitch cycles (the changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, the planet's axial tilt, and the wobble of the Earth's axis). The Milankovitch cycle overlays changes that occur over 100,000 year (orbital eccentricity), 41,000 year (axial tilt), and 26,000 years (precession, or wobble of the axis of rotation). Put these cycles together, and they influence climate.

So - how much of the recent observations are just measurement error or location bias? and if actual change is happening, how much is CO2? or maybe AMO or where we are in the current Milankovitch cycle?

If the "experts" are not looking seriously at the actual change, and then the range of possible explanations, they are not doing science, they are doing religion...

I'm bringing this back since I found this article on OANN.

NASA: Climate Changes Due To Shifts In Solar Orbit, Not Human Activity

quote:

NASA’s findings suggest so-called “man-made climate change” is a political narrative to impose economic control over the global population. The agency has reportedly known about this since 1958. However, its findings seem to have been buried in the archives, while the global push of climate advocacy has taken the forefront of world politics.

Informative and funny

Go to 7:07 in the video (this is immediately after he refers to Al Gore as "the average D student") and look at the list of subjets Dr. Soon says a person needs to be versed in, in order to be able to comprehend the very complex subject of climate change, and he says that that list is not even complete.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Informative and funny...

This guy is very good. I enjoy his videos. And he is brilliant.


.

Dr. Soon ends with this quote from Richard Lindzen:

quote:

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Lindzen also said this:

quote:

Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.

love how they've changed the goalpost from 'global warming' specifically to 'climate change' generally the last couple years

not buying it

first you have to be prove the temperatures are actually rising in a critical amount

then you have to prove that it's BAD they are rising

then you have to prove the rising is MAN-made vs. normal historic variation

then you have to prove whatever hair-brained scheme they can think up will actually HELP the condition (carbon credit tax, blah blah blah)\

like a lot of things -- follow the money and you will see the true agenda

nothing they can do can prove those tenets

and don't get me started on the 'settled science' nonsense...

-----------------------------------------

Link to original video: https://youtu.be/8fK_9p6ZFHc

I'm 71 years old. I have seen hot summers, cool summers, rainy summers. Super cold winters , very mild winters, lots of snow ,very little snow. So whats my point? Wait till you've been on this earth for afew years and it will dawn you that CC is a folly for (primarily young , easily swayed) fools.

It would be more plausible if the doomsayers had ever gotten it right, at any point in time.

Seems history is settling their science...

No, the WSJ is not conservative, outside of the official editorial page. The unofficial editorial pages(the balance of the paper) definitely lean left. That's why I dropped it several years ago. It's garbage.

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:
...Note the WSJ is owned by Murdoch. Same as Fox news. This is a conservative source. Sorry for the paywall. One must subscribe to the WSJ to read the entire article.

Check out this video. It is a great illustration of how the Left cherry picks data and timelines to make it look like they are correct. Notice the actual graph start dates and how hot it was 100 years ago. It will open your eyes:

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
No, the WSJ is not conservative, outside of the official editorial page. The unofficial editorial pages(the balance of the paper) definitely lean left. That's why I dropped it several years ago. It's garbage.

Yup.

I just started watching Dr. Soon's videos. Great fun. Making the truth interesting.

These people are seriously, deeply nuts and dangerous. Go to 6:30 in the video for an example.

KMA Ottmar! God, I wish we would stop funding the UN and kick the bastards out of the country.

I think this sums it up pretty well. This guy explains the whole thing as rent seeking at its worst.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rtystv7dc

I recall reading some statistics not long ago on this and if I remember correctly the mean global temperate in 2006 was approximately 57.2 degrees

and in 2016, it was a whopping 57.2 degrees

if I can find that link to the resource I will post it

as for the CO2 debate, CO2 is a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator (they even managed to get that one wrong)

Done responsibly, protecting and improving our air, water, and earth only makes sense and improves everyone's quality of life.

But when it comes to climate change it's as simple as who butters your bread. The vast majority of scientists who are modeling and making the case for global warming are being funded by government both directly and indirectly via universities. Grants are continuously renewed to the ones that supply any kind of data to make the case, while the grants expire for the ones who do not. My good friend working at the Dept of Energy (just one of many departments shelling out our money for "climate study") is involved with "awarding of research grants" and knows it's bullshit but is only one of 5-6 on various panels directed to study and select the best of the proposals which were submitted. Just look at all the agencies, Universities, paid scientists, and politicians who are making out with this. The only looser is we who fund this sham.
The only light at the end of the tunnel is that support for this "cause" seems to be waning but it'll take a long time, probably have to come up with another crisis that these same politicians and researchers can shift their attention to. Agencies can then shift funding and the circle is complete.