Manipulating data to support global warming claims: a simple guide.

Thanks for posting. The truth is that it has never been about the climate, but about the political removal of human liberty to create scarcity and guaranteed income and privilege for the very few.

 

That would be a most nefarios thing.

 

If his graphs are correct the old saw is being used...figures dont lie but liars can figure! By cherry picking in this example .

Some alarmist needs to chime in here to tell us what is going on? And why the cherry picking used as evidence to support what appears to be a huge scam .

 

Very true but there is no doubt that the temp are increasing

 

This video concentrates on the continental U.S. with respect to wild fires and heat waves. It does not address the entire surface of the earth and the rate of wild fires are not a good proxy for global warming.

I don't think that there is any evidence of a cover up of Arctic sea ice extent prior to 1979. There was a dip in sea ice extent in the period 1972 -1976 but it doesn't effect the long term trend towards decreasing

Arctic sea ice extent. The ice is also getting thinner. Tony Heller, the narrator in this video at the realclimatescience.com website, claims that Arctic sea ice is unchanged from 60 years ago but this is false.


From NASA:


Sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades and ice mass loss in both Greenland and Antarctica have also been accelerating over the same time period..

The graph and sentence below are from: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-leve "Climate Change: Global Sea Level"

The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015.

 

No, it isn't true. It is a wild claim.

 

To believe that, you must believe in a grand conspiracy among climate scientists. The burden of proof should be on those individuals that claim that human increases in greenhouse gases, along with future

increases, is something that is benign or not harmful to human life.

 

Who is this nut case and more importantly who is funding this video?

 

To keep things at the same level as the OP here is a video completely debunking the twaddle presented in the video in the OP



A point that Mallen Baker has missed though is that Tony Heller seems to think that there are no climate scientists outside the USA

 

edited

 

annnnnd this is somehow happening in every nation on earth?

 

lol, step 1: giant conspiracy
step 2:....
step 3: PROFIT!!

 

es
Where is the evidence it is not benign and harmful to human life? The big claim it is harmful and so much so we need carbon taxes! For fossil fuels are still essential for civ.

So it appears the earth is warming due to the increase in ppm of co2 the gas of life. . But this may result in more positive than negative .The alarmists should bear the burden of evidence to support their doomsday predictions

 

But wouldn't a bunch of environmental regulations make things harder for the people at the top who own businesses?

 

I always ask. ..WHO benefits the greatest in money and power? If it is the usual global elite ... that becomes relevant.

When carbon taxes were discussed and planned by special interests that great flow of money could be financialized with great profits for elites.

Is it possible for this potential transfer of wealth to affect science that is a human endeavor.

 

Well? Which one DOES make more sense? For your conspiracy to work it would involve 187 countries and ignores the current crop of fossil fuel “elites”

 

They have

It is called the IPCC

You should read the reports sometime

 

Humans are altering the Earth's energy balance by increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. This isn't disputed by any climate scientists that I know of, including the climate contrarians

This is enhancing the greenhouse effect by reducing the amount of energy radiated back to space so the Earth's surface must warm to restore the energy imbalance. The Earth's energy imbalance

was measured during the 2005 to 2010 time period and it was found to be gaining 0.58 watts per square meter, and that was during a period in which a prolonged solar minimum occurred.

The graph below is from https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing

The fact that there was +2.3 watts per square meter of net radiative forcing as of 2011 relative to 1750 suggests very strongly that the planet's surface should have warmed significantly over that

period of time. If one multiplies that number by the climate sensitivity that could easily account for all of the warming plus about another 0.5 degrees C. of warming that is still in the pipeline.

There is no reason to believe that climate scientists need to exaggerate or invent a coming climate crisis when the evidence is so strong that humans are greatly affecting the climate.

As little as a 1 degree C. increase in the global mean temperature over a period of 100 years or more could destabilize Greenland and West Antarctica.



This figure shows the amount of radiative forcing caused by various greenhouse gases, based on the change in concentration of these gases in the Earth’s atmosphere since 1750. Radiative forcing is calculated in watts per square meter, which represents the size of the energy imbalance in the atmosphere. On the right side of the graph, radiative forcing has been converted to the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, which is set to a value of 1.0 for 1990.

 

I'd say this. It should. And why shouldn't it? We are recovering from a little ice age after all. So, what makes folks think that temperatures shouldn't rebound, naturally?

 

That recovery should have ended by 1950. There is no science that supports the rapid rise in global surface temperatures since 1980, the rise in ocean heat content, recent cooling of the stratoshere, increasing

levels of relative humidity, and decreasing diurnal temperature range other than enhanced greenhouse gas warming.

 

In genearal we want a common base for competition. When the rules apply to all, capitalism works.

Lack of environmental law is what gave us rivers catching fire, excess deaths due to coal smoke, lead in our drinking water, lethal working conditios, etc., etc.

Capitalism works just fine without rivers as toilets.

 

So when is doomsday and how many people are doomed? I wont see it given my age but perhaps you will.

I dont think we have the science and understanding to predict such nonsense .

Hell modern science cannot even tell us anything about ufos! And they havr been here since the 40s.
I think we need to put climatologists on it given they display such certainly that most scientists cannot display.

Sorry BUT ONLY CHARALTANS DISPLAY SUCH CERTAINTY AND ONLY IDIOTS BELIEVE THEM.

 

Never claimed co2 doesn't warm the earth. I dont buy into the fear mongering and dooms

AAlso natural warming will eventually melt the ice cap and Greenland will be green again followed by an ice age.

Man's co2 will get us there sooner . The next ice age is far more dangerous for humanity.

 

What makes sense is money is made anywhere it can be made and fossil fuels are finite.

Remember the fear mongering of the 70s when we were told we were running out of oil? And we would peak out and then production would decline until there was no more ? And that was supposed to have happened by now

Seen this alarmism before and probably before you were born . Top scientists told us this! There was a consensus! Well they were wrong!