Someone asked me on Twitter today "who are you to debate climate scientists."
Well, who are priests and clergy to debate Darwinism? Should we prevent debate that does not suit us?
Here's a widely held view: Climate Change Denial Should Be a Crime.
In 1663, leading scientists all thought the sun revolved around the earth. The Catholic Church Convicted Galileo of Heresy for disputing the claim.
Supposedly, we are brighter today.
But why do we have scientists faking data and suppressing data that does not meet the cause?
The Climate Scandal of the Decade involves fundamentally flawed methods and data manipulation to produce a "hockey stick" rise in temperatures.
When the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?
What the Hell Is NASA Hiding?
Forgive me for asking, but What Is NASA Hiding?
If you click on that link it will display an interesting message.
The article has been suppressed since 2010.
I commend an unknown person who made this screen shot. I saw it in a Tweet, captured the image, but failed to record the person who snapped the image or the Tweet itself.
It's difficult to read as presented, but I enlarged the image many times to make the transcript below.
The words are all legible. Here is a partial transcript starting with the opening paragraph, with all pertinent views from both sides captured fully. Emphasis is mine.
The Sun is the primary forcing of the Earth's climate system. ... In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world's climate system and makes possible life as we know it.
Earth's orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing "orbital mechanics" force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details). [Mish Comment: Unfortunately we can't.]
Thus, changing Earth's exposure forces climate to change. According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation towards the sun indicate that our world should just be beginning to enter a new period of cooling - perhaps the next ice age.
The text does discuss humans.
After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on a local and global level.
I can accept that. I can also accept that temperatures are rising, while disputing the amount for many reasons.
Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth's climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.
Any data that does not agree with climate foregone conclusions, will be wiped away. I just offered strong evidence.
What else has NASA suppressed?
Why do we need to suppress well-written articles when many scientists have doubts?
Someone posted a screenshot of a NASA page, now taken down, that blames the sun, not CO2 for global warming.— Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) February 12, 2019
Here is the NASA Pagehttps://t.co/PwEg1zdvga
Anyone have the article or Tweet discussing that page?
Humans breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
Perhaps we have a solution that no one will endorse.
At the very minimum, why aren't any of the global warming advocates promoting distribution of free birth control pills?
Earth's Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected
Scientific American reports the Earth's Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected.
Changes measured by the Swarm satellite show that our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than originally predicted, especially over the Western Hemisphere
Scientists do not know why. What else don't they know? What do they think they know, that's false?
Background Radiation - Cloud Mystery - Cosmic Rays
The Cloud Mystery is a documentary that explores the published theory by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on how galactic cosmic rays, the earth's position in the Milky Way, and solar activity affect cloud cover, and how this influences the earth's climate.
Svensmark believes the earth's position in the milky way as it moves in and out of various spiral arms affects the amount of radiation hitting the earth and affecting long temperature cycles.
Fossil evidence suggest his theory is reasonable, if not entirely correct. Perhaps Svensmark is the modern day Galileo.
The video is long. But please play it!
"You must take the Milky Way Into account if you want to take past variations of the climate into account. The whole solar system rotates around the Milky Way once every 250 million years. That's one galactic year".
Those clips start at about the 30 minute mark or so.
The video is quite fascinating. I suggest you play it all.
Hardly anyone will. Most prefer to believe Al Gore's lies.
Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore Lies
On October 12, 2007, ABC news commented on An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore.
One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.
High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.
Gore said the probability was 75%, a figure he claims was from other scientists.
Please consider 'Onward, Climate Soldiers'
Former politician and current entrepreneur Al Gore has been preparing an army of devotees to fight for the atmosphere. This air force has been trained in multi-day indoctrination sessions via slick PowerPoint slides that have become part and parcel of the former vice president’s tactic. Such training, under the flag of the Climate Reality Project, has reportedly produced more than 15,000 Climate Reality leaders worldwide. The Climate Reality website urges participants to: “Fight like your world depends on it.” The political world of command and control certainly does.
Prophets of doom use the power of the purse to pursue penitent proselytes to produce profits from PowerPoints. OK, the alliteration may be a bit much, but the catastrophe promoters certainly reap fortune from misfortune. The misfortune includes skewed science.
Everyone seems to be cashing in on the doomsday predictions, from private companies (consulting and technology firms) and academic institutions (university research and education) to governments with their expanding power and workforces.
The big losers are, as usual, the ones stuck paying the bill — the middle-class taxpayers and the world’s poor. Science also ends up losing thanks to a system of penalties and rewards favoring the crisis-mongers.
Yet, onward, climate soldiers, marching as to war, with the power and purse of politics going on before.
Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail” (Stairway Press, 2016).
Reducing extremely complex systems that evolve over hundreds of millions of years to a single component, CO2, measured over hundreds or even thousands of years, is logically absurd.
I am willing to concede - and always have - that man is responsible for a percentage of global warming. I do not know what that percentage is, but it is clear that it has been exaggerated and that contrary evidence has been suppressed.
The true believers think we can take "all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth's climate system", reduce them to man-made CO2 and ignore the sun, ignore random fluctuations, ignore Precession, ignore the earth's position in the Milky Way, ignore background radiation, ignore sunspot cycles, and ignore any other scientific data that does not fit their model.
Of course, that means ...
Mish is a Climate Denier Criminal
Who am I? Who is Galileo, and How Dare NASA Scientists Write That!
Despite the lies, the data manipulations, the article suppression, and Lord only knows what we don't see but should, anyone who does not accept obvious bullshit that the earth will end in 12 years (or whenever) is a criminal climate denier.
Who am I? Scientifically Nobody
I may be nobody, but scientist Henrik Svensmark is somebody, and he makes sense to me. Fossil evidence supports his theory.
Sunspot cycle theories also make sense to me.
On the other side we have the blatant lies of Al Gore, coverups and lies by hockey stick proponents, data manipulations, and evidence suppression by NASA and elsewhere.
The fact that we have all these lies, coverups, data revisions, and even theory revisions is damning evidence that something is seriously wrong with the simple man-made CO2 global warming thesis presented.
To top it off, we have totally absurd hype by AOC who warns us the World Will End in 12 Years if we do not address climate change.
People are willing to embrace such total and complete nonsense while ignoring genuine debate from reputable scientists who by the way do not manipulate data to their benefit.
No doubt I will be branded as a denier. Curiously, I am not.
- I accept that temperatures measurements have been rising.
- I agree with the climatologists that in isolation, an increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature.
- I am all in favor of reducing pollution.
- China is a basket case. China is literally poisoning its population right now.
Regarding point number one, many temperature measurements are distorted beyond belief. Gauges are in places like airports and cities surrounded by asphalt and accompanied with increasing airline exhaust and traffic.
Watts Up With That has an entire series on absurdly placed temperature gauges. That link is to rebuttal number 30!
Regarding point number two, I seriously question what percentage of the temperature increase is man-made as opposed to long-term cycles, solar activity, Milky Way Radiation, random fluctuations, or something we just do not understand.
Why Should I Give a Damn?
I care about pollution. It affects me here and now. Those with kids can also relate.
But global warming?
This question will shock some, but quite frankly: Why should I, or anyone else give a damn about global warming, even if one believes the absurd hype?
The Yellow Vest Movement in France has as its heart, that very question. French president Emmanuel Macron raised gasoline taxes to save the world.
In the face of massive protests, now going on 14 weeks Macron rescinded the gas taxes.
Fake Sense of Urgency
The world will not end in 12 years or even 200 years. But, no one would be concerned about problems 200 years from now, would they?
Thus, the false prophets must create a fake sense of urgency today.
They did. And they succeeded.
Amusingly, the World needs $90 Trillion infrastructure overhaul to avoid climate disaster, according to the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which is co-chaired by prominent climate economist Lord Nicholas Stern.
Regardless of what you believe, the notion that the government would do something sensible about this problem or any problem is ludicrous in and of itself.
Governments don't solve problems, they create waste.
Yet, we are told the world will end in 12 years if we do not act today.
Florida Question of the Day
To those living in Florida, if you believe the claims, why are you still there?
Seriously, get the hell out because the entire state will soon be underwater.
Time's a wastin! Pack up the babies and grab the old ladies, cause everyone goes. Evacuate now!
Global Warming Religion
Global warming is a religion. Anyone who doesn't believe is branded as a heretic.
It's religiously sexy and very easy to promote end of the world doomsday scenarios, until people are told their taxes need to quadruple.
The alternative, "There is no story here because the world won't end tomorrow" is not easy to promote. The media has no interest.
Similarly, the media does not want to hear or repeat anything by scientists like Henrik Svensmark.
Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn
In France, people decided, and rightfully so, they were a bit more concerned about living today than supporting the religious belief that the world will end in 12 years if we don't raise taxes today.
Looking back, the earth was here 4.5 billion years ago. It has survived countless warming and cooling cycles. I am confident it will survive another set of cycles.
Finally, I am tired of the ridiculous hype, fake sense of urgency, and absurd fearmongering.
Taking all of the above points into consideration, please ponder this entirely logical position: Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn, and I wouldn't even if I believed your preposterous lies.