Posted by Tina
If ever there was a year when the climate change zealots were found to be political, rather than genuinely concerned and backed by science, it’s this one. Obama has said it’s a greater threat than terrorism. “Deniers” are labeled radical and crazy? The zealots site NASA…or the fabled 97% to prove consensus. OMG, how could anyone argue with NASA!!!
Well how about we ask NASA:
Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.
Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced – which causes the global greenhouse effect.
While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols – also given off by burning fossil fuels – actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily
The scientists questioned whether computer models were “taking into account all factors and were accurate.”
Good question! How many other variables have been overlooked, dismissed, or undiscovered on the path to consensus.
Read more over at Anthony’s site, WUWT
Hey NASA deniers…welcome to the club!
Have yourselves a Merry little Christmas…and if you have one, I hope you’re enjoying that cut tree!
The science is far from “settled.” The 97% figure has long been debunked and is as fraudulent as the AGW theory which does not even qualify as a theory. It is at best a hypotheses, and a bad hypothesis at that. AGW pseudo-science predicts nothing and its only achievement is hysteria.
AGW is the biggest black eye on science since eugenics.
Very well said Pie.
I can speak to the emotional, political hype but you are much more powerfully grounded to address the science. Thanks
Real Science is finalized, koch is not, RICO cases may be warranted, stayed tuned, BZTW Christmas Day may be tee shirt out here #EastCoast #propaganda #Exxon
The climate change hoopla is based conclusions made before any tests or studies were done, and results tweaked to fit the conclusions. Simple fact is that we haven’t been gathering weather data long enough to come up with these draconian claims.
The whole climate-change nonsense is all about $$ and control/political power. Take a look at who is pushing, and you’ll see who thinks they will benefit.
“Take a look at who is pushing, and you’ll see who thinks they will benefit.”
They have already benefited to the detriment, even death, of many .people. If it hasn’t hit in the pocket book it’s hit in high heating bills that fixed income people can’t afford heating oil.
Radical progressives are dangerous because they don’t consider unintended consequences, they use emotional appeal rather than reasoning to determine policy. When policy is shaped by zealotry and a political “cause” the consequences can be extremely detrimental.
Profit before life!
Do you not know what the word “global” means, or were you intentionally trying to mislead your audience by claiming that NASA was talking about “global” cooling, when the article you quite clearly says they only found cooling in some areas?
Yes Chris, even I know what “global” means, you condescending little twerp.
Trouble is, I just can’t get passed the sentence I highlighted: “Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt”
Let’s play your game. Do you know what “major theories,” “causes,” “temperatures to rise” and “thrown into doubt” mean?
How about the sentence: “The scientists questioned whether computer models were “taking into account all factors and were accurate.”
Read the definition of “scientific method.” Study hard and maybe you too will understand he significance of the finding and the article!
Tina: “Yes Chris, even I know what “global” means”
So then why did you claim that NASA said that fossil fuels were causing global cooling, when you know that is not what they said?
Are you going to revise the title of this article to take out your inaccurate claim that NASA said anything about “global cooling,” since you know they never said that?
You really need to read to the end of the article you linked to. The study concluded that previous studies have actually underestimated the effect of climate change due to not fully taking into account the effects of aerosols:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the future estimate rise at 1.8°F (1.0°C).
But the new NASA study dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C).
Mr Schmidt said: “If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver.””
This is just another example in a long line of examples of the right wing media–and you–misrepresenting scientific studies to make them say things they don’t actually say. Remember when you kept promoting that James Taylor piece citing a study which allegedly proved that a majority of climate scientists disagreed with AGW, even though the study cited no climate scientists and the authors said so repreatdly? This isn’t about healthy debate, this is about exploiting ignorance and lying about what scientists have said.
“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver.”
The entire global warming political hoax is based in predicting future events. It’s based in magical thinking and fortune telling. There is no way to predict how people, acting in their own interests, will impact the future through innovation or, finally embracing nuclear energy.
These zealots have been making doom and gloom predictions for decades and none of them have come true. But our pockets have been robbed to address this “emergency situation” and people have dies unnecessarily. It’s STUPID!
And you can go pound sand in terms of your “right wing” BS. You on the left DO NOT have a monopoly on truth, in fact there is a lot of evidence that your leadership acts in quite deceitful and underhanded ways. So put a sock in it!
Tina: “in fact there is a lot of evidence that your leadership acts in quite deceitful and underhanded ways.”
Do you believe that because the left has lied about this issue, that gives you moral license to lie about it as well?
Is that why you claimed in your title that NASA said fossil fuels cause “global cooling,” when you knew that they never said any such thing?
Chris the very first sentence in the article is:
Major theories have been thrown into doubt. Why? Because “NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.”
I did not lie. I wrote a title that would spark interest in reading further.
Your need to try to nail me is pathetic, Chris. In fact it’s become quite apparent that many of you on the left suffer from a pathological need to be hypercritical of others just when you should be examining yourselves and admitting your failures.
I’d be embarrassed if I were you, continuing to defend a theory, or as Pie has clarified, something that hardly even qualifies as a “bad” hypotheses. It should be particularly embarrassing since it is based on tricks and lies and perpetrated for political power and MONEY…the so-called bugaboos of the left.
Why did you choose not to hold the phase “in areas” in the portion you quoted, as if it was unimportant?
Do you not understand the difference between “global cooling” and “cooling in areas?” (This would go back to my question of whether or not you understand what “global” means.)
Or did you simply think that by not bolding that phrase, I wouldn’t notice it?
You still have not provided any explanation for why you claimed that NASA said “global cooling” when they said no such thing.
Why do you think it is OK to misrepresent scientists in this way?
Tina ……..Really?
Re : If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver.
There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has ever been or will ever be a dominant climate driver.
Bless you Pie!
What Chris refuses to recognize is the schizophrenic nature of Gavin Schmidt. I find it mildly interesting that the brain washed Chris enthusiastically complains in these pages about what he perceives as Post Scripts “lies” but never gets his teat in a tangle about the actual serial lies of the left and AGW activists.
Chris is a simpleton, the climate is not as simple.
Pie, are you saying that because the left lies about climate change, that excuses the lie told in the headline of this article? Namely, the lie that NASA said something which you, Tina, and I all know they never actually said?
Dear **** for brains, if you read my posts in this thread I do not mention NASA, I only m4ntion Gavin Schmidt and the schizophrenic nature of his “study.”
Go f*** yourself with your “lie” bs you infantile jerk.
Pie: “Dear **** for brains, if you read my posts in this thread I do not mention NASA”
I know that; I’m trying to get you to.
I’ll make my question more clear:
Do you think the headline is ethical, even though NASA never said anything about “global cooling?”
pie always end with name calling, when you represent your words?
Nassa scientists found: “…the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place…”
If they found cooling in areas of heavy industrialization and deforestation the assertion that man in his use of fossil fuels and his habit of cutting trees IS NOT the contributor to climate change in any direction. Cooling happened, dim whit, where they least expected it.
You should be focusing on the much more more significant political hoax that’s been perpetrated at great expense and human cost and feeling intensely embarrassed for yourself and your party.
Instead, you do what lefties always do…you go on the attack. Pathetic!
Tina: “If they found cooling in areas of heavy industrialization and deforestation the assertion that man in his use of fossil fuels and his habit of cutting trees IS NOT the contributor to climate change in any direction. Cooling happened, dim whit, where they least expected it.”
But they did not find global cooling.
So why did you say that they did in your headline?
Is it because you thought that might make it more interesting, and thus get more people to read your article?
Is it because you didn’t think people would click to link to verify your claim?
Is it because you didn’t know that NASA said nothing about global cooling, because you didn’t look into whether what you were saying was true before you said it? (I’m betting on this one.)
I just want an explanation for why you decided to say something in your headline that wasn’t true. And why, now that you know it isn’t true, you refuse to correct the headline or admit you made any mistake, and instead offer double talk and spin, all the while criticizing others for being dishonest.
Do you understand that when you offer dishonesty, it automatically undercuts any claims you make about the dishonesty of others? Why am I supposed to believe you when you say climate change is a “political hoax,” when you constantly misrepresent scientists like you have in the headline here, and then refuse to admit when you’re caught doing so?
I’ve always admired he convoluted bogosity of the “denial” posts, but as this one is such a straight-forward snatch at straw, I will point out that one big fat tree, standing around for hundreds of years, sucking CO2 out of the air is probably way more significant to a stable environment than any transient expulsion of aerosols.
I went to a hippie-dippie symposium on, among other things, carbon capture strategies in agriculture. There are clever people abroad in the land who have done math and run models suggesting that a determined effort to re-plant (among other things) the planet could turn this warming thing around in as little as 50 years.
But there will be no mustering the planetary will to do this until you Pawns of Big Oil shut the eff up!
Oh, shut up yourself you brain dead twit. Start your own damn blog and see the flood of followers you get.
“Big oil pawns?”
Idiot.
Libby how can you be so ignorant. I suppose those people you site in agriculture all sleep out in the open and cook over an open fire. They pound their clothes on rocks in a nearby creek to get them clean, too. And where do their clothes come from? Why, they hire handy folks, cheap, to sheer the sheep, spin the thread, and weave the cloth. Others make those clothes by hand, one set for everyday and another for Sunday best.
What planet do you live on? It will be many decades, if ever, before this planet will make do without oil.
meanwhile you miss the most salient point of all: people pursuing their dreams and best interests are the entrepreneurs and innovators that have produced and invented us out of the dark ages. They did this to a spectacular degree in this FREE nation. Problems? We beat them best by getting the heck out of the way and letting creative people, investors, and eager beaver job seekers do their thing
The creative and industrious natures in mankind are blunted and stifled by socialist, communist, fascist governments. Wise up and you won’t have to grouse on endlessly about imagined problems or evil “deniers.”
What would we do without experts like Chris and Bette Midler?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/23/bette-midler-blames-warm-christmas-weather-on-ignorant-selfish-climate-deniers/
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
— Richard Feynman
“The average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere has warmed just over four tenths of a degree Celsius (almost three fourths of a degree Fahrenheit) during the past 37 years, with the greatest warming over the Arctic Ocean and Australia, said Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Microwave sounding units on board NOAA and NASA satellites completed 37 complete years of collecting temperature data in November, giving us nearly global coverage of climate change during that time.
“If that trend was to continue for another 63 years, the composite warming for the globe would be 1.1 C (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit) for the century, Christy said. That would put the average global temperature change over 100 years well under the 2.0 C (3.6 degrees F) goal set recently at the climate change summit in Paris.”
UAH: UN climate change goal? New trend analysis shows we’re there now!
This bears repeating, so I will quote myself …
“There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has ever been or will ever be a dominant climate driver.”
Again I have fallen with allusions to coarse language in comments above, but infantile, low information, left-wing agenda driven twits like Chris really piss me off. He is a tool and a fool. A useful idiot.
Harold did an outstanding deconstruction Chris in another thread I cannot find at the moment. I bow to Harold and Post Scripts. If I only had your cool headedness. Something I need to emulate.
Pie, how does that justify Tina’s false claim in the headline that NASA said “fossil fuels cause global cooling?” Are you not aware that this claim is false? Or do you not care because spreading this claim helps your cause politically?
Pardon me, but just exactly what is my political cause? I would be grateful to find out just exactly what that is. Please be so kind as to elaborate, you jerk from left-wing idiot hell.
How about you answer the question I asked first? Do you think the inaccurate headline is justified?
The wonderful thing about AGW is that it explains EVERYTHING that does not happen!
Super storms and increases in tornadoes.
Rise in ocean level.
California droughts.
Increase in infectious diseases and pest born diseases such as lyme disease.
National security threats : global warming is causing a reduction in food and water supplies and migrations of people to places with more food and water will increase risks of military conflict.
Allergies worsen
Sheep in the UK suffer from increased parasitical lung disease.
Methane from livestock causes global warming.
Warmer winters increase the destructive pine beetle populations.
Lush vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada.
Shrinking glaciers
All of the above claims are bald faced lies, and there are many more.
Oops, a bit sloppy again. That should have read The wonderful thing about AGW is that it explains EVERYTHING even stuff that does not happen!
This bears repeating too —
More scientific evidence that polar bears are doing just fine – a 30% increase in population with some of them “as fat as pigs.”
Pie thank you for your efforts to clarify. I appreciate having a voice like yours in these discussions. Your job would have been much easier had I left “global” out of the title. The article clarifies the point but the niggling teacher still finds it necessary to “grade” the effort rather than expressing interest in or surprise about by the findings.
Thanks too for acknowledging your language. You aren’t the only one here who goes a bit too far at times…some of it more covert than yours.
“…after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.”
The “earth has cooled” where they would expect significant warming, according to their sketchy hypothesis. This has caused doubts. Duh…doubts about what?
Hard to let go…next I’ll be cursing 🙂
Tina: “Your job would have been much easier had I left “global” out of the title”
Well, yes, because adding the word “global” made it a lie, in the same way that it would be a lie if I said a rainstorm in central California was a “global rainstorm.”
Anyway, I realize that the above quote is the closest you will ever come to a retraction of the headline, so I’ll let the matter drop.
Snippy like a girl, Chris: Well, yes, because adding the word “global” made it a lie, in the same way that it would be a lie if I said a rainstorm in central California was a “global rainstorm.”
NASA did say, “they found aerosols – also given off by burning fossil fuels – actually cool the local environment”
Take out the extra words and the meat is exposed: Aerosols given off by fossil fuels cool the local environment.
Sorry to me this might suggest that burning a ton of fossil fuels all over the world, the thing the scammers are trying to shut down, could create cooling…globally! If it happens in one industrial spot, it could happen anywhere.
Why all of the jacked up vitriol, Chris? What is the real reason you can’t stand that headline? Could it be that the findings “created doubt” about the assertions warmers make about climate change?
Tina: “Sorry to me this might suggest that burning a ton of fossil fuels all over the world, the thing the scammers are trying to shut down, could create cooling…globally! If it happens in one industrial spot, it could happen anywhere.”
Emphasis mine.
Do you know what ANY words mean? Do you see no difference between saying something “might” or “could,” and claiming that it actually DID happen, as per the headline?
“Why all of the jacked up vitriol, Chris? What is the real reason you can’t stand that headline?”
The real reason is that it’s a lie.
But you don’t mind the lies that created the hoax or the deceit that created the 97%. In fact you have mocked those who have attempted to expose the lies. Why on GODS green earth should it matter that I inadvertently (it wasn’t intentional) put global in the title?
There’s a pathology in this. You are attempting to hold me to a standard you don’t hold others to and I don’t have anywhere near the power they have. What is up with that?
Tina: “But you don’t mind the lies that created the hoax or the deceit that created the 97%”
As you know, I don’t believe AGW is a “hoax,” and I have explained the validity of the 97% statistic many times. So I don’t think these are lies. And I think much of the evidence you have provided against them have been just as dishonest as the “global cooling” claim here.
“Why on GODS green earth should it matter that I inadvertently (it wasn’t intentional) put global in the title?”
I’ll take this as a retraction. We’re square.
Global warming means global. It does not mean a flat line average for 18 years. It does not mean that parts of the planet get warmer while other parts get cooler for whatever reason some overpaid jerk with a crappy computer model at NASA or GISS comes up with.
Computational climate models are a lot like Chris, garbage in, garbage out.
Artificial Data
How good is the NASA GISS global temperature dataset?
Chris, “I’ll take this as a retraction. We’re square.”
Whatever.
Have you made a single comment about the findings?
Nope, none that I noticed.
“Have you made a single comment about the findings?”
Yes, though it was in a different thread. I pointed out that the study found that the effect of aerosols was less than previously thought, meaning that the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming might actually have been underestimated in the past. In other words, the study did not cast doubt on the theory of AGW at all.
Did you know this is what the study said when you posted this article? Or were you fooled by other right-wing sites into thinking the study said the opposite?
Really, Chris? Are you prepared to tell us that you don’t read left wing sites and that your opinion hasn’t been formed by these sites?
This is an inane criticism. Clearly we all read sites that support our positions…we post links to them! That includes you, so what?
“…the effect of aerosols was less than previously thought, meaning that the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming might actually have been underestimated…the study did not cast doubt on the theory of AGW at all.
Now who’s “lying!” You’ve left out very important words, Chris. The words, ” in areas of heavy industrialisation,” where higher temps were expected based on the AGW hypothesis, are very important to the point. OMG! You also used the word “might.”
Quoting your snide remark to me: “Do you know what ANY words mean? Do you see no difference between saying something “might” or “could,” and claiming that it actually DID happen, as per the headline?
By the way, it did happen that they found cooling, or cooler temps, where they expected to find a huge rise, or higher temps, due to it’s being an industrial (man made aerosol effect) area! The finding “could” indicate that the AGW hypothesis, which is being used to financially rape the free world, might be a lie. Not only that, it “could” further expose what is actually a scam.
Questioning their computer models, The scientists “questioned whether computer models” were “taking into account all factors and were accurate.”
When scientists “doubt” the information they’ve used in computer models, its a big F*%^&#$ deal! (To quote the VP) At the very least, it tosses that consensus nonsense on the ash heap.
That they used this modeling information to make spectacular claims, create fear and alarm world wide, as an excuse to hold “important” climate summits where so-called experts and leaders of nations agree to use falsely claimed “consensus opinion” to tax the people of the free world and regulate businesses out of business, is evidence of science that is irresponsibly put forth and suggests an enormous hoax.
The headline, which on further examination is quite cynical, isn’t a lie. It is an inadvertent device that manages to question the lies being perpetrated on the entire world…that human beings can impact the climate greatly. The second part of the lie (The hoax) is the real payoff…money is extracted from those on the planet that have actually cleaned up emissions (and lets nations that are polluting freely off the hook), untested, inadequate alternatives can be forced on the people, fuel industries (coal/oil) can be destroyed, limited, and marginalized, draconian regulations can be imposed that impact farming and other industries and force people into expensive smaller (more dangerous) cars and give up trucks and SUV’s, and carbon exchanges, created by some of those “important people” will garner great profits to the traders.
This entire conversation has been an exercise in the futility of pointing out the obvious to green zealots. I guess I have to thank you for that, Chris!
Marvel and Schmidt are full of Schmidt and the computer models estimating temperature increase are pure Schmidt.
That supposed anthropocentric CO2 increase comprises a primary climate driver is pure hogwash. It does not even qualify as significant as “micro aggression” (10^-6).
That is the lie. A bald faced lie born out by 18 years of contrary evidence. Temperature data not speciously manipulated by climate “scientists” seeking to maintain funding by manufacturing a “result” not in evidence AND political activist “scientists” seeking a political agenda as well as to keep their jobs have corrupted science and the scientific method. And you thought “big tobacco” was bad. *SNORT*
The politicization of science by climate science is very depressing.
My mutilated sentence construction while editing arises again.
The above should have read “That anthropocentric CO2 increase supposedly comprises a primary climate driver is pure hogwash. It does not even qualify as significant as “micro aggression” (10^-6).