Why researchers and politicians lie about climate change

[pjmret]

Real climate scientists do not avoid data that conflicts with popular but unproven narratives. Real scientists incorporate3 all data in their research and conclusions. Here are facts no real scientist ignores or denies:

The Real News about Climate: CO2 Is No Threat – The Heartland Institute 2019

The Real News about Climate: CO2 Is No Threat

The CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere is four in 10,000 or 0.0004, well under 1 percent. Please rest assured our atmosphere is not filling with carbon dioxide! Alarmists used to claim CO2 warmed Earth, but retreated, perhaps owing to fear lack of polar snowmelt would reveal their game! Now they instead claim CO2 aggravates climate changes, so a hot day will be hotter, a cold day colder. The narrative flip-flop from warming to a successor story of CO2-enhanced hurricanes is not credible. Yet it is very revealing. It’s as if a fabulist contrived a new tale, with CO2 starring again as the villain.

you think that is actually science? lol.
it sounds like a science moron wrote it.

 

[mark francis]

yet more worthless posts. lol.
nothing to do with proving that anyone is lying about climate blah blah blah.

You seem ill prepared to discuss all sides of the issue like a true scientist.

 

[mark francis]

no one denies that there are scientists who disagree. duh.
taht doesnt make it fake as you claim, science moron.

god you post the dumbest things. lol

Not addressing or being able to address inconvenient facts proves someone claiming expertise in the science is neither knowledgeable nor a real scientist.

 

[mark francis]

you think that is actually science? lol.
it sounds like a science moron wrote it.

The man may sound like a moron to those who are hooked on false narratives that are contradicted by scientific evidence.

 

[pjmret]

The man may sound like a moron to those who are hooked on false narratives that are contradicted by scientific evidence.

no, it sounds like moron science.

 

[pjmret]

You seem ill prepared to discuss all sides of the issue like a true scientist.

i am prepared to discuss something intelligent and speciifc from you.
let me know when you have anything except claiming its fake because you dont like it lol

 

[pjmret]

Not addressing or being able to address inconvenient facts proves someone claiming expertise in the science is neither knowledgeable nor a real scientist.

more vague worthless posts. lol.

let me know when you prove climate science is fake. lol

 

[the annoying thing]

Nobody can be totally ignorant of the graft and corruption associated with government spending, including Medicare, covid relief funds, welfare, foreign aid, and hundreds of other people and projects the government spends money on. 64 billion is a lot of money, especially if billions of those allocated government dollars are destined to end up wasted in the personal bank accounts of players who know how to game the system.

Yes there is so much abuse look at COVID funds billions scammed and wasted. Same with unemployment.
I saw where there was a grant to fund great apes behavior on cocaine and their mating habits .

 

[pjmret]

Yes there is so much abuse look at COVID funds billions scammed and wasted. Same with unemployment.
I saw where there was a grant to fund great apes behavior on cocaine and their mating habits .

none of which proves that global warming is fake of course

 

[mark francis]

no, it sounds like moron science.

I'm posting here an example of the type of bad assumptions underlying all the failed predictions of global warming disasters that utterly failed, embarrassing thousands of global warming enthusiasts and propagandists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm 12-12-07

BBC News Updated every minute of every day

ONE-MINUTE WORLD NEWS

News Front Page ​ Africa Americas Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East South Asia UK Business Health Science & Environment Technology Entertainment Also in the news ----------------- Video and Audio ----------------- Programmes Have Your Say In Pictures Country Profiles Special Reports Related BBC sites Sport Weather On This Day Editors' Blog BBC World Service

Page last updated at 10:40 GMT, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 E-mail this to a friend Printable version Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records More details Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly Professor Peter Wadhams "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." Real world Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years. Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams. These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100. But the Monterey researcher believes these models have seriously underestimated some key melting processes. In particular, Professor Maslowski is adamant that models need to incorporate more realistic representations of the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. "My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection," Professor Maslowski said. "The reason is that their low spatial resolution actually limits them from seeing important detailed factors. "We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data. This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN-led body which assesses the state of the Earth's climate system, uses an averaged group of models to forecast ice loss in the Arctic. But it is has become apparent in recent years that the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models. The minimum ice extent reached in September 2007 shattered the previous record for ice withdrawal set in 2005, of 5.32 million square km. The long-term average minimum, based on data from 1979 to 2000, is 6.74 million square km. In comparison, 2007 was lower by 2.61 million square km, an area approximately equal to the size of Alaska and Texas combined, or the size of 10 United Kingdoms. Diminishing returns Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski. "Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented. "The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab. "Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice." Along the Northwest Passage He cited the ice-albedo feedback effect in which open water receives more solar radiation, which in turn leads to additional warming and further melting. Professor Wadhams said the Arctic was now being set up for further ice loss in the coming years. "The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse. "There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting. "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting. Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate. "My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of." And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out." Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo. Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

People make a huge mistake putting their faith in scientists who propagate lies that are disproven in no time.

 

[mark francis]

none of which proves that global warming is fake of course

Nobody can prove global warming alarmism is based upon facts properly interpreted and understood.


Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling (forbes.com) 5-31-12

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Peter Ferrara

Former Contributor

I cover public policy, particularly concerning economics.

May 31, 2012,03:26pm EDT

This article is more than 10 years old.

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

 

[pjmret]

I'm posting here an example of the type of bad assumptions underlying all the failed predictions of global warming disasters that utterly failed, embarrassing thousands of global warming enthusiasts and propagandists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm 12-12-07

BBC News Updated every minute of every day

ONE-MINUTE WORLD NEWS

News Front Page ​ Africa Americas Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East South Asia UK Business Health Science & Environment Technology Entertainment Also in the news ----------------- Video and Audio ----------------- Programmes Have Your Say In Pictures Country Profiles Special Reports Related BBC sites Sport Weather On This Day Editors' Blog BBC World Service

Page last updated at 10:40 GMT, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 E-mail this to a friend Printable version Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records More details Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly Professor Peter Wadhams "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." Real world Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years. Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams. These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100. But the Monterey researcher believes these models have seriously underestimated some key melting processes. In particular, Professor Maslowski is adamant that models need to incorporate more realistic representations of the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. "My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection," Professor Maslowski said. "The reason is that their low spatial resolution actually limits them from seeing important detailed factors. "We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data. This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN-led body which assesses the state of the Earth's climate system, uses an averaged group of models to forecast ice loss in the Arctic. But it is has become apparent in recent years that the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models. The minimum ice extent reached in September 2007 shattered the previous record for ice withdrawal set in 2005, of 5.32 million square km. The long-term average minimum, based on data from 1979 to 2000, is 6.74 million square km. In comparison, 2007 was lower by 2.61 million square km, an area approximately equal to the size of Alaska and Texas combined, or the size of 10 United Kingdoms. Diminishing returns Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski. "Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented. "The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab. "Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice." Along the Northwest Passage He cited the ice-albedo feedback effect in which open water receives more solar radiation, which in turn leads to additional warming and further melting. Professor Wadhams said the Arctic was now being set up for further ice loss in the coming years. "The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse. "There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting. "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting. Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate. "My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of." And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out." Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo. Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

People make a huge mistake putting their faith in scientists who propagate lies that are disproven in no time.

Random cherry picked forecasts prove nothing duh

Where are the lies?

 

[the annoying thing]

none of which proves that global warming is fake of course

Lug nut you dumb ass did I say global warming isn't real it's happened numerous times in earths history along with the earth freezing .
Now you go ahead and tell us all how your going to make changes that effect the entire planet and how your going to pay for it and how you can meet the energy needs of 8 billion people and industry's.

 

[pjmret]

Lug nut you dumb ass did I say global warming isn't real it's happened numerous times in earths history along with the earth freezing .
Now you go ahead and tell us all how your going to make changes that effect the entire planet and how your going to pay for it and how you can meet the energy needs of 8 billion people and industry's.

So you agree with mark yes or no

 

[the annoying thing]

So you agree with mark yes or no

Yes and no .