Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

Give me an example. Then show me how the problem is so rampant and pervasive that all conclusions from climate research must be discarded.

 

I honestly don't know anything about her. Is there a reason I shouldn't support her? Just asking because I legitimately don't know.

 

I think the quote was>... "By raising our ambition for #climateaction, we are not just changing the weather, we are building a better future for all,”

Just interested in what you think about that...

 

I don't know. What's the context? If "building a better future" means killing people and stealing money then yeah that's terrible. But, if "building a better future" means moving from an unsustainable fossil fuel based economy to an economy that isn't dependent on fossil fuels and is thus sustainable then sign me up.

I'm guessing since you posed the question the context was that she wants to euthanize people, steal money from the United States, or be the dictator of the world right?

I'll go look up the quote now.

 

Well, I found the quote...

https://twitter.com/PEspinosaC/status/1039996471544709120

What am I missing? I didn't hear anything malicious or nefarious in that speech. Did I miss something?

 

Fake Science is so common now that even "peer review" has masked fraud.
I would guess that most science is still not Fake Science, but whenever money and politics are involved skepticism is appropriate.

 

The problem probably started with Schneider winning a AAAS Award for urging scientists to fudge their results.

"To do that (reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climactic change) we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" that we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." atmospheric scientist Stephen Schneider, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Discover" magazine, Oct. 1989.
In 1991 Schneider won the AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science) "Award for the Public Understanding of Science." Paul R. Gross, and Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition," Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, pp 167,168.

 

First, that guy should be fired and all of his publications invalidated. Second, did the thousands of scientists that collect data and contribute to field head his advice? And going even further, did they go beyond his advice and commit outright fraud? What percentage of them should be in jail?

 

Funny. I thought you'd key right in on it. She said: "we are not just changing the weather"...... Gloss over it as you will.....

 

Oh, yeah, I missed that. She should have said "climate" and not "weather". Or more precisely to be correct she should have said "we are not just trying to stop the change of climate..."

I guess the question now is...should she go to jail for her views? That Baff guy who posts in other threads thinks so. Ddyad...what say you?

 

Um.... obtuse suits you.. But it doesn't diminish this idea that she believes that she and her merry little band of bureaucrats are effectively changing the weather. As we speak. Changing the weather. Have to dig it. These are like the leaders of your team too.... Does the club make you wear pointy black hats too??

 

Assuming she meant to say climate then her views fall in line with the consensus of the scientific community. If she really did mean weather than she's an idiot.

Nah...we wear pocket protectors

 

How do you know where I get my information? You assume that since I am not on the AGW bandwagon that I get all my information from people who know nothing of the subject. You are wrong, but you don't really care. Your assumption is a self-preservation technique to avoid confronting a belief.

 

Schneider was very influential. Google him.


Schneider (right) with Thomas Lovejoy and Marina Silva

• 1991 AAAS Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology.[13]
• 1992 MacArthur Fellow "Genius Award".
• 2002 Elected to the National Academy of Sciences.
• Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Section on Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences (1999–2001).
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to which Schneider made very significant contributions, shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

 

I already know who he is. This isn't my first rodeo. I'd say he gets brought up in about 10% of these threads. The question is was he able to convince thousands of scientists to fake all of their data? Also, how did he go back in time and change all of the data that existed prior to his statements?

 

He won a AAAS award for promoting Fake Science. He was good at it. Again, the active promotion of Fake Science has destroyed the credibility of scientists.

Verify carefully comes before trust now.

 

So one bad apple necessarily means all scientists are bad people?

You're reverting back to calling all of science fake. And you still haven't even given me an example of actual fraud.

 

Pointing to the fact that imanonman uploads times more data that you do makes me a troll?

You said and I quoted: " If believing the climate is changing is being religious then I do wonder what hole you're hiding in. Since every day the climate does something different, then simply denying is pretty stupid."

Your the climate is the undefined, never described, ambiguous, used by you, as well as by all people arguing against, for, and in the middle of AWG, GW, CC, ACC as it fits, and in totally opposite to the scientific description and definition ways value, - your Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Carry on with your belief in the FSM.

But don't call others religious nuts while being no different from them.

 

Don't confuse poor journalism with good science

 

I don't. Are you saying National Geographic is "poor journalism"? I'll bet you did not read the NG article, it was science based and presented the data for and against both global cooling and global warming.

 

I read it. Did you know that very article is specifically mentioned in the academic publication I linked to?

Again, we are not disputing that global cooling was popular in the 1970's especially among the media and laypeople. What we are disputing is that it was popular among experts because it wasn't.

 

Then you did not read the NG article. Unless you are a poor reader and missed all the scientists that the article quoted regarding global cooling.

 

Like I said, I read the article. Most of the scientists portrayed in the article didn't actually make any statements regarding whether they thought the Earth would warm or cool in the future. Most were just reporting observations or providing hypothetical scenarios such as "if there were a 1.6 to 2.0% drop in energy reaching the surface then that would lead to unstable advance of snow cover to the equator" or "if a period of hyperactive volcanism where to occur then the Earth would cool" or "if the Antarctic ice sheet broke off it would trigger the next ice age". But few actually claimed that they really thought these hypothetical scenarios were inevitable and that the Earth was going to enter a new ice age. And of those that were crafting these hypothetical scenarios like Alex Wilson they were immediately met with skepticism by their peers. The exception may be Reid Bryson who really did come right and out and say that anthroprogenic aerosols would outweigh greenhouse gases in terms of the effect which necessarily meant the Earth would cool in the near term. By the way, the irony with Bryson is that he really did think CO2 was producing a warming effect and even told congress as much in 1973. But, when it become obvious that his "human volcano" theory wasn't panning out he eventually decided that CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas afterall and that the planet was warming for some other unknown reason. Anyway, let's just assume that all of the scientists in that article were full bore into near term cooling futures for Earth (which isn't even remotely the reality of that article). That STILL wouldn't even come close to representing the scientific consensus at the time which was overwhelmingly in favor anthroprogenic warming. Like, not even close.

The fact is that since Arrhenius' made the first prediction of anthroprogenic warming in 1896 the scientific community slowly and reluctantly began taking notice with the biggest traction occurring, ironically, in the 1970's and 1980's during a period in which the media was hyping the global cooling craze.

 

Just a quick update...where forecasters were less than stellar at the intensity forecast they more than made up for with the track forecast. The official forecast from 5 days out (the first official landfall forecast) was for a landfall at 34.3N, 77.9W. Florence actually made landfall at 34.2N, 77.8W for a difference of less than 5 miles. Sadly I concede that the track forecast wasn't perfect.

 

Good for you that you read the article.

Yet nothing you have presented backs up your claim that global cooling was a media myth and was not a concept considered seriously by the scientific community.