31,487 U.S. Scientists Reject Global Warming Hoax

______
Not only was it Gore espousing these false evaluations, there were scores of so-called scientists that agreed and embellished upon that statement by producing false findings. According to them today the UK would now be a groups of islands and the coast of the United States would now be 6 to ten feet under water, to include Florida, NYC, New Jersey, North and South Carolina New Orleans etc. Nature and real science has disproved the lies. The blatant lies by the Progressive Socialist Left have been made not in the name of science by in the name of greed to the tune of billions if not trillions of dollars.
Note since 2001 Al Gore's net worth at that time was $1.7 million today spouting AGW/Climate change he is worth somewhere north of $300 million.

 

There is no way a theoretical climate scientist can get to first base without top level molecular physics, calculus, cosmology, geology, thermodynamics, fluid flow, etc. it is impossible to learn molecular physics and molecular energy states and transfer, for instance, "in the field."

 

And yet most climatology degree curriculums you find on the internet include none of this as undergraduate study. In fact, I can't find any that do.

Not only do you need calculus, you need vector calculus (sometimes known as multivariate calculus) plus partial differential equations. We used that a lot in the study of electromagnetic fields which are very similar to fluid flows.

Maybe this explains why the climate models are so simplistic in trying to model energy and fluid flows?

Where *do* climate scientists learn all this if they don't learn it in undergrad studies?

 

Paris Climate Treaty objectives:

• Hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels, and make efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Centigrade. There is a chance that holding the temperature rise to less than 2 degrees will ward off the melting of the Greenland ice shelf and the West Antarctic ice sheet, which would produce a catastrophic rise in global sea level.

What is laughable, is these climate fools think they have the power to control the climate of the earth, to hold world temperatures steady, and stop the oceans from rising, simply by controlling human output of CO2.

That's really all you need to do know to conclude this is all junk science and propaganda.

 

Gore also distorts science and facts to mislead people, in order to push his catastrophic man-made climate change/warming agenda. For example, he uses the flooding in south Florida and blames it on global warming, when it's a matter of geology, and the limestone and other materials which make up south Florida.

 

There are 6.2 million scientists in the U.S.

So that's 0.5% that reject the notion of global warming. Not a very effective refutation of the consensus.

Maybe they can come down there to Miami Beach and help bail it out when it gets flooded on the king tides.

 

And once they learn all of this, they come away believing humans can control the temperature of the entire planet, simply by manipulating human-induced CO2?

 

They sound like the same kind of fools who thought they had the power to control acid rain and ozone depletion.

 

Ya think? I've lived in SoFla for 40 years.

They didn't have Miami Beach flooding on high tides in those days.

 

One cannot disprove a negative.

And here's a nice peer-reviewed article from September 2016, proving that the previous Inter-Glacial Period was significantly warmer than present:

How warm was Greenland during the last interglacial period?

The NEEM paradox has emerged from an estimated large local warming above the preindustrial level (7.5 ± 1.8 °C at the deposition site 126 kyr ago without correction for any overall ice sheet altitude changes between the LIG and the preindustrial period) based on water isotopes, together with limited local ice thinning, suggesting more resilience of the real Greenland ice sheet than shown in some ice sheet models. Here, we provide an independent assessment of the average LIG Greenland surface warming using ice core air isotopic composition (δ15N) and relationships between accumulation rate and temperature. The LIG surface temperature at the upstream NEEM deposition site without ice sheet altitude correction is estimated to be warmer by +8.5 ± 2.5 °C compared to the preindustrial period. This temperature estimate is consistent with the 7.5 ± 1.8 °C warming initially determined from NEEM water isotopes but at the upper end of the preindustrial period to LIG temperature difference of +5.2 ± 2.3 °C obtained at the NGRIP (North Greenland Ice Core Project) site by the same method.

[emphasis mine]

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1933/2016/

If temperatures in Greenland increase by 8.5°C or 15.3°F the only thing you can claim is that this Inter-Glacial is as warm as the previous Inter-Glacial.

Prove that temperatures shouldn't be that high.

 

In this case we can. Global warming is falsifiable by showing that temperatures have not increased over time. It's just that it will probably take another 30 years or so before we can confidently falsify the predictions should they in fact be false.

 

Oh yeah? Just wait until another Mini-Ice Age. Governments will be rationing food and non-food items in hopes of avoiding the deaths of Millions of people.

 

None of those names are on the list including Geri Halliwell.

 

Incorrect, no skeptic rejects that there has not been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. What they dispute is the extent of human influence on the climate and that it is cause for concern.

You are effectively refuting all claims of "consensus" when you apply those standards.

What percentage of U.S. scientists support AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause)?

 

You're excluding most of the hottest years on record in your hurricane data, you're including 2010 through 2016, but completely leaving out 2000 through 2009. It makes zero sense to make an analysis on climate change and exclude the majority of the hottest years on record. Also note that landfall hurricanes are counted multiple times. So for example if a category 5 hurricane hits 4 caribbean islands, that's counted as 4 different landfalls. I would need to see the source behind your numbers to conclude if it is counting by landfalls or not. The number of category 5 hurricanes (not l in the northern hemisphere over the past 20 years is more than double the number of category 5s during the 20 years prior.

The same thing is true with wildfires, from 1980 to 1989 there were 140 wildfires over 1000 acres in the US west, from 1990 to 1999 there were 160 wildfires over 1000 acres, and from 2000 to 2012 there were 250 wild fires over 1000 acres.

As for NASA's page being out of date.. it was last updated May 2017, it is definitely not out of date, I do not know what you are basing that on. This discussion has been interesting to say the very least, you've suggested cooler air in the upper atmosphere goes against the laws of thermodynamics, and now are brushing off NASA's page on sea levels for reasons that are unclear. You're criticizing my source.. which is NASA.. and what is your source again?

As for the economics of alternative energy, Hubbert's peak is actually based on both recoverable reserves and production. Hubbert predicted that our oil production would peak as a result of our level of recoverable oil. His prediction not only proved true, but his prediction was within a year of when we actually peaked. What does this mean? it means since the 1960s the US has been a bigger oil importer than it has been an exporter. You're questioning whether or not we've hit Hubbert's peak.. but we hit that peak quite a long time ago already. Whether or not we have hit Hubbert's peak or not is not in questions, we are a net negative in oil exports.. that IS Hubbert's peak, and the only chance of us overcoming this peak is if we consume less oil. Does this mean we're running out of oil? no, we're never going to run out of oil, but the longer we depend on oil, the longer we depend on buying and importing our energy from foreign sources.

We're never going to run out of oil, but we're also never going to be a world leader in oil exports again. The same is true for coal, as long as there are developing countries paying their miners 26 cents an hour, those developing countries are always going to be a cheaper alternative to American coal. The only energy source that we have a chance of being a world leading exporter in is alternative energies. The innovations that US scientists have developed in wind and solar can make us a world leader in energy exports again, which would mean great things for our economy.

 

No...the Deniers were dishonest?

Say it ain't so!

 

Really? When the AGW religionists point to 1998 as the beginning of the real warming tend? When it got *really* hot! It's only been 20 years.

The satellite record shows no warming for almost 20 years. When this was first pointed out in 2002, the AGW religionists said we had to wait 10 years to confirm no warming. When the 10 year interval passed then all of a sudden "we need 20 years of no warming to believe it". And now you are saying we need 30 years? What's going to happen at the 30 year mark? Are we going to be told that now we must prove no warming for 50 years in order for the AGW religionists to believe it?

Remember, what we are being told is that "our computer models are right, your pause is just a phantom". Well, pardon me for believing in reality instead of a bunch of fortune tellers who just want my money!

 

The data for the 90's and the 2000's WERE HIGHER. Much higher! And I thought 2016 was the hottest year on record? That's what the AGW religionists have been crowing!

My source is wikipedia! try here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes

Period Number of recorded storms
affecting United States
1850s 17
1860s 15
1870s 19
1880s 25
1890s 20
1900–1909 17
1910s 21
1920s 15
1930s 18
1940s 23
1950s 20
1960s 15
1970s 12
1980s 17
1990s 15
2000–2009 19
2010s 6

If you dnn't like that, try this from NOAA:

I gave you the site where I got my wildfire data. I don't know where you got yours. My site shows wildfires as *down*, not up. One more AGW religionist claim all shot to hell!

It's out of date because it mentions *nothing* about coastal subsidence due to deep wells depleting the ground of water, i.e. "fracking" for water!

His prediction is wrong. Oil production in the US is *back* to 1970 levels. Something Hubbert didn't predict would happen.
Go here: www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

It doesn't matter if we export or import. Hubbert's graph was for *production*, not import or export. From wikipedia: "In 1956, Hubbert proposed that fossil fuel production in a given region over time would follow a roughly bell-shaped curve without giving a precise formula; he later used the Hubbert curve, the derivative of the logistic curve,[5][6] for estimating future production using past observed discoveries." (bolding mine, upside)

So what if we aren't a world leader in oil expoorts? That wasn't the issue at hand! You are deflecting!

If other places mine coal cheaper then why does China keep buying our coal? Could it be their 26cents per hour miners can't produce enough to meet their needs?

We will never beat China in alternative energy exports. We aren't willing enough to pollute the US with the rare earth minerals and such needed to make solar cells. Why do you think Solyndra went under?

 

I think you're misunderstanding what I am explaining to you, warmer ocean temperatures doesn't mean more storms everywhere, it means stronger hurricanes.. in fact the very source you are using depicts exactly what I am telling you, you'll notice that that the Atlantic Basin Storms count shows a significant increase in category 5 hurricanes since the late 1990s. Here it is again, notice the amount of purple in the graph (Major Hurricanes) from the late 90s to today compared to the 20 to 30 years prior.. hell, compare it to any 20 year period in history.


The amount of category 5 hurricanes has more than doubled over the past 20 years. Overall storms? I know of no source that is saying that climate change results in more named storms worldwide.. but if you read the page from NASA that I provided (which I do not believe you did) it explains how warmer ocean temperatures is resulting in a higher frequency of category 5 hurricanes.The graph which you yourself provided depicts this perfectly actually. So again, you are misunderstanding me.. climate change doesn't mean more storms everywhere, it means warmer ocean temperatures, which in turn means stronger hurricanes. As for the hottest years on record, the past 17 years all rank in the top 17 ever recorded




It is also important to note that climate change effects different regions in different ways (as addressed in the NASA page I provided) wild fires in the South West and North West US have increased significantly



Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

As for rising ocean levels.. water wells have nothing to do with rising ocean levels. Depleting the ground of water doesn't result in rising ocean levels

As for the economics of fossil fuels, I think you're misunderstanding what Hubbert's peak is. Hubbert's peak is when our recoverable oil is no long able to keep up with our consumption, thus we begin importing more oil than we are exporting. Starting in the later 60s, and throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s we imported more oil than we exported. THAT is Hubbert's peak, and the only feasible way for us to overcome this peak is if we reduce our oil consumption. Again, this isn't a theory anymore, we hit Hubbert's peak a long time ago

As for China buying our coal, that has to do with our trade deficit with them, when we buy goods from China, we purchase those goods with our own currency. So what does China do with those dollars? do they spend it on Chinese goods? Indian goods? No, they spend that money on goods from the US(that's what those dollars are good for), such as coal. Furthermore, the discussion was never that our coal exports have hit zero, the discussion was the fact that our coal exports compared to countries like India are far more expensive and less desired. The point is that our coal is far less competitive on the global market than these other countries, even if we were to multiply our coal supply, the demand for our product would remain lower than the coal in countries like India. The potential for growing our economy through coal is gone

The only energy sources that we have the potential to be a world leading exporter in is alternative energies. Our innovations in solar and wind energy means we are producing higher quality and more efficient sources of alternative energies than other countries. We're never going to be a world leader in oil or coal exports, but we do have the potential to be the leading exporter in alternative energy sources, we're already one of the leading countries. If we can get other countries to agree to use more alternative energy sources, our economy benefits in a big way

 

Global warming chicken little cultists are science deniers ranting that the earth's climate never has and never would change without humans.

 

Can you read a graph? PURPLE marks major hurricanes! In 2014 there is *NO* purple! You can't even admit to yourself what your eyes are showing!

You cannot base what is happening today on what happened 20 years ago. The trend is *down*. Totally opposite from what you and the AGW relgionists claim.

Except the Southwest is *NOT* in a drought any longer. Nor is the Northwest. Cattle production is up everywhere meaning increased amount of pasture and hay. It's why I say the NASA pages are so out of date! And NASA actually expects the temperature in the West could rise as much as 6.5degF over the next 30 years? Wow! Has that kind of alarmism been debunked over the past decade! Again, this only shows how out of date the NASA pages are!

Huh? Land subsidence doesn't look like rising ocean levels? Did you even bother to look up the word "subsidence"? Why do you suppose NYC, Baltimore, and Boston have seen higher sea level rises than much of the rest of the East Coast? Prevailing winds perhaps?

I quoted you what Hubbert's Peak is. It is a measure of production based on declining reserves. Yet our production has climbed to a level equal to the 1970 peak on the Hubbert graph. You keep wanting to deflect into talking about imports and exports. Our production is *NOT* the logistical curve Hubbert predicted.

So China buys our coal when they don't need it? Just because they have dollars? What do they do with the coal they buy from us?

Again, PRODUCTION is what is important, not innovation. China is *much* better at pushing production than we are. It's why Solyndra failed. They couldn't compete with cheaper products from China!

 

Some don't, most do, but not entirely because of their formal education but because of the rule of the "herd of independent minds" and peer pressure.

 

NO ONE is claiming the climate hasn't changed over long periods of time.

Why lie?

 

That is true, but I must have missed it: who lies? about what?

 

EXACTLY who is claiming that the climate hasn't changed over long periods of time?