Members banned from this thread: Cypress, evince, moon, domer76, archives, Nomad, Micawber, CharacterAssassin, Jade Dragon, guno and reagansghost


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41

Thread: There is NO climate emergency

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,625
    Thanks
    30,537
    Thanked 20,274 Times in 15,880 Posts
    Groans
    21,103
    Groaned 3,620 Times in 3,441 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default There is NO climate emergency

    .

    .
    .


    Climate models predict disaster - but real world evidence shows no such thing

    Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris

    Speaking at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change, held July 25 in Washington, DC, Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville said: “There is no climate crisis. Even if all the warming we’ve seen in any observational dataset is due to increasing CO2 (carbon dioxide), which I don’t believe it is, it’s probably too small for any person to feel in their lifetime.”

    And yet, that same month, Democrat Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Earl Blumenauer and Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a non-binding resolution that demands a “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization” - to “halt, reverse, mitigate and prepare for the consequences of the climate emergency, and to restore the climate for future generations.” Six Democrat presidential candidates immediately supported the resolution, as a way to spur “sweeping reforms” to stem a “dangerous rise in global temperatures.”

    In their view, apparently, asserting a climate emergency makes it a reality and justifies national or even global control and transformation of our energy, social, industrial, economic, legal and social systems.

    Thus, in an effort to drum up support for its costly “carbon tax,” the Liberal government of Canada has also declared a climate emergency. So has Britain’s Parliament, to back up a call by opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for “rapid and dramatic action” to protect the environment , following weeks of protests by the Extinction Rebellion climate movement, the Reuters News Agency reported.

    The Climate Mobilization group proclaimed that “Over 790 local governments in 17 countries have declared a climate emergency and committed to action to drive down emissions at emergency speed.”

    In considering whether this makes any sense, let’s take a page out of Blumenauer’s book and, as he put it, “tell the truth about the nature of this threat.”

    The so-called emergency is based on nothing but the over-active imaginations of activists who put too much faith in computer model forecasts, while ignoring historic records and observational data that tell us nothing extraordinary or unprecedented is happening - and demonstrate that the models are wrong.

    NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies asserts that between 1880 and 2017 there has been only slightly more than 1 degree C (1.8 F) rise in the so-called global average temperature, despite a supposed 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database of state-wide extreme weather records, arguably the best of its kind in the world, shows that so far in 2019 only one weather record has been set: the lowest temperature in Illinois history.

    In 2018, the only records set were: the largest hailstone in Alabama history; the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in Hawaii; and the most precipitation in one year in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia. Many of these records broke, sometimes barely, records that had stood for many decades.

    In 2017, the only record set was for the fastest wind gust in California. No records were set in 2016. In 2015, only two records: the most precipitation in a year in Arkansas and the largest hailstone in Illinois history. In 2014, only one record: the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in New York.

    And so it goes, year after year, as we move into the past with the occasional state record set, as one would expect due to natural climate variability. In the first 18+ years of the 21st century, only two states recorded their maximum temperatures: South Carolina in 2012 and South Dakota in 2006. Contrast that with 1936, when 15 states set their all-time maximum temperature records.

    Meanwhile, NOAA’s updated coastal sea level tide gauge data for 2016 show no evidence that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. Seas are rising no faster than they have for many decades.

    NOAA’s hurricane records go back to 1851. The data show that for almost 12 consecutive years - October 24, 2005 (after Wilma) until August 25, 2017 (Harvey) - not one major or moderate (Category 3-5) hurricane made landfall in the continental United States. That is the longest such period in history. In 2018, for the first time ever, not one “violent” (F4-5) tornado touched down in the United States.

    To the great frustration of climate alarmists, the real-world instrumental record clearly shows that, not only is no climate emergency underway, but today’s climate is actually quite stable. Aside from the drive for world socialism, the climate scare is based on only one thing: computer model forecasts of what some say could happen someday if we do not restrict our use of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions.

    However, the models do not work. That’s because they focus predominantly on greenhouse gases, and because scientists do not understand planetary climate processes well enough to know what mathematical equations to program into the models. Observations demonstrate that the actual rate of warming between 1979 and 2017 is one-third of what the average of 102 different climate models predicted. In fact, that climate model average is now almost one full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites have measured!

    It is also important to realize that your own local weather forecasts just one week ahead are accurate only half the time. Let’s drill a bit deeper into this scandal.

    For the better part of three decades, governments have financed more than one hundred efforts to model our planet. They continue to do so even though none of the models has been able to recreate (hindcast) the known past, or after a decade of study accurately predict what was to happen just ten years later.

    People are led astray, because generally speaking, the public has no clue what mathematical models actually are, how they work, and what they can and cannot do. To provide a simple insight into this complex subject, before we build airplanes or buildings, we make small scale physical models and test them against the stress and performances that will be required of them when they are actually built.

    When dealing with systems that are totally beyond our control, we try to describe them with computer programs or mathematical equations that we hope may give answers to questions we have about how the system works today and in the future. We attempt to understand the variables that affect the system’s operation. Then we alter the variables and see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing and is the very best use of mathematical models.

    Historically, we were never foolish enough to make economic decisions based on predictions calculated from equations we think might control how nature works. Perhaps the most active area for mathematical modeling is the economy and stock market. No one has ever succeeded in getting it right, and they have far fewer variables than Earth’s climate, which is governed by many powerful natural forces.

    Yet, today, in the climate sphere, we are doing just that - and using the models to justify massive changes in our energy and economic systems. While no one knows all the variables affecting climate, there are likely hundreds of them. Here are some important factors for which we have limited understanding:

    1) seasonal, annual and decadal changes in solar irradiation; 2) energy flows between the ocean and atmosphere; 3) energy flows between the air and land; 4) balance between Earth’s water, water vapor and ice; 5) the impacts of clouds, both trapping heat below and preventing solar radiation from reaching Earth; 6) understanding the planet’s ice; 7) changes in mass among ice sheets, seal levels and glaciers; 8) our ability to factor in hurricanes and tornadoes; 9) the impact of vegetation on temperature; 10) tectonic movements on ocean bottoms; 11) differential rotation between Earth’s surface and its core; and 12) solar system magnetic field and gravitational interactions.

    Despite this vast uncertainty, today’s modelers claim they can forecast our planet’s climate for decades or even a century in the future - by looking primarily or solely at “greenhouse gases.” And they want our leaders to manage our energy, economic, agricultural, transportation and other systems accordingly.

    Yes, there is a climate-related emergency. It is the threat to our way of life in the free democratic world - imposed on us by climate alarmists, many of whom do not really care about climate change, people or the environment. It is an assault no less frightening and damaging than the wars that have plagued mankind since the dawn of time. It’s time for people and governments to stand up to the power-hungry alarmists.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Lehr...emergency.pdfp
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Controlled Opposition (09-26-2019), Stretch (09-21-2019), Terri4Trump (09-24-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,625
    Thanks
    30,537
    Thanked 20,274 Times in 15,880 Posts
    Groans
    21,103
    Groaned 3,620 Times in 3,441 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Bump
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    17,606
    Thanks
    8,304
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 3,898 Posts
    Groans
    288
    Groaned 706 Times in 656 Posts

    Default


  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,625
    Thanks
    30,537
    Thanked 20,274 Times in 15,880 Posts
    Groans
    21,103
    Groaned 3,620 Times in 3,441 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    ..
    Hitler used children to intimidate adults as well, so what?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/glo...-off-the-grid/
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Stretch (09-21-2019)

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    17,606
    Thanks
    8,304
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 3,898 Posts
    Groans
    288
    Groaned 706 Times in 656 Posts

    Default

    Let's see (scratching head), believe a million people world-wide, ... or believe some guy on the Internet?

  8. The Following User Groans At Jack For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (09-21-2019)

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Jack For This Post:

    Phantasmal (09-21-2019)

  10. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    17,606
    Thanks
    8,304
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 3,898 Posts
    Groans
    288
    Groaned 706 Times in 656 Posts

    Default

    "Millions hit the streets for global climate change strike"
    https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/gl...-live-updates/

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,625
    Thanks
    30,537
    Thanked 20,274 Times in 15,880 Posts
    Groans
    21,103
    Groaned 3,620 Times in 3,441 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    "Millions hit the streets for global climate change strike"
    https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/gl...-live-updates/
    News consumers everywhere should prepare for the onslaught of climate change stories ahead of the UN climate summit next week.

    Instigated by Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation, more than 250 media entities joined forces to foster urgency and action regarding the climate “crisis” and devote extra time to what CJR claimed was “the defining story of our time.”

    Partners included CBS, PBS Newshour, Bloomberg, AFP, Getty Images, Adweek, CQ and Roll Call, The Guardian, Newsweek, Rolling Stone and many more including a huge number of local media.

    All media and institutional partners agreed to spend more time on climate change the week before Sept. 23, so expect a whole lot of carbon shaming, eco-lecturing, and climate apocalyptic prophecies.

    CJR bragged the activist media coalition was “Throwing a billion news consumers behind coverage of the climate crisis,” in its e-newsletter “The Media Today” Sept. 16.

    The Covering Climate Now website listed a “small sampling” of climate stories from media partners including 14 items (three from CBS alone) all published on Sept. 15.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/me...limate-summit/
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,625
    Thanks
    30,537
    Thanked 20,274 Times in 15,880 Posts
    Groans
    21,103
    Groaned 3,620 Times in 3,441 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Let's see (scratching head), believe a million people world-wide, ... or believe some guy on the Internet?
    A million scientifically illiterate people, easily manipulated by a cynical media. I had high hopes for you Jack when you came here but alas you're just one of the sheeple.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/me...limate-summit/
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    17,606
    Thanks
    8,304
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 3,898 Posts
    Groans
    288
    Groaned 706 Times in 656 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    A million scientifically illiterate people, easily manipulated by a cynical media. I had high hopes for you Jack when you came here but alas you're just one of the sheeple.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/me...limate-summit/
    Well, Havana. You put 8 billion people on a Planet, and they're bound to fuck it up. That's my view.

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    17,606
    Thanks
    8,304
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 3,898 Posts
    Groans
    288
    Groaned 706 Times in 656 Posts

    Default

    "It is estimated that the population of the world reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It would be another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to rise by another billion people, reaching three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, by some estimates, seven billion in October 2011"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...ion_milestones

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    2,422
    Thanks
    1,292
    Thanked 1,952 Times in 1,187 Posts
    Groans
    75
    Groaned 417 Times in 362 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    "It is estimated that the population of the world reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It would be another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to rise by another billion people, reaching three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, by some estimates, seven billion in October 2011"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...ion_milestones
    The weirdest thing is that the OP acts as if really bad things will unfold if steps are taken to limit greenhouse gases and put policies in place to clean up and preserve the environment and ecosystems. Think about that...really bizarre.

  16. The Following User Groans At Cinnabar For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (09-21-2019)

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Cinnabar For This Post:

    Jack (09-21-2019)

  18. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,625
    Thanks
    30,537
    Thanked 20,274 Times in 15,880 Posts
    Groans
    21,103
    Groaned 3,620 Times in 3,441 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Well, Havana. You put 8 billion people on a Planet, and they're bound to fuck it up. That's my view.
    If you want to solve the problem then it's pretty damn simple. Forget stupid windmills and solar bird cookers, go hell for leather with 4th gen nuclear technology.

    https://www.theengineer.co.uk/genera...uclear-future/
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  19. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    17,606
    Thanks
    8,304
    Thanked 4,971 Times in 3,898 Posts
    Groans
    288
    Groaned 706 Times in 656 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    If you want to solve the problem then it's pretty damn simple. Forget stupid windmills and solar bird cookers, go hell for leather with 4th gen nuclear technology.

    https://www.theengineer.co.uk/genera...uclear-future/
    Is anybody opposing that?

  20. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,625
    Thanks
    30,537
    Thanked 20,274 Times in 15,880 Posts
    Groans
    21,103
    Groaned 3,620 Times in 3,441 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Well, Havana. You put 8 billion people on a Planet, and they're bound to fuck it up. That's my view.
    So then why aren't the fucking media banging on about limiting population then?
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  21. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    74,625
    Thanks
    30,537
    Thanked 20,274 Times in 15,880 Posts
    Groans
    21,103
    Groaned 3,620 Times in 3,441 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Is anybody opposing that?
    Of course they are, even mention that and you'll get the usual morons going on about Chernobyl and waste. The fact that it's impossible for molten salt reactors to go into meltdown and they actually can use 'nuclear waste', more correctly known as spent fuel, from conventional reactors is a massive selling point.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-28-2019, 08:22 PM
  2. UK becomes world's first to declare a Climate Emergency
    By moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-19-2019, 01:11 PM
  3. Fake Emergency vs. Real Emergency
    By Bourbon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-29-2019, 09:30 AM
  4. Roger Pielke takes embarrassing National Climate Assessment apart
    By Havana Moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2018, 05:10 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-07-2018, 06:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •