Anthropogenic Global Warming: Why I left the Religion

| 56 Comments

Because as a scientist, I can do the math. How do you explain the 18 years of zero temperature increases, when CO2 levels have continued to rise?

The computer model predictions have all failed, every single one of them.

Pic6.JPG

I recommend Watts Up With That You can read the studies, they give all the links and analysis there.

Please don't Google 'deniers' & run back to me saying that it is not a credible site, go see the studies, the math, & the manipulation of data for yourself. Because there are literally trillions of dollars at stake, so of course there is a vested interest in keeping this thing going. If you disagree with something I say, quote me exactly which sentences you disagree with, then show me the actual research that contradicts what I have said.

Follow the money & you will see where the truth lies. Say it were true: If you believe that humans cause climate change, how does moving vast quantities of money help that? Exactly how would a carbon tax help and exactly when would we see the verification of that?

Australia's carbon tax was to take $139 billion out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Had it been successful, it was supposed to reduce CO2 from the atmosphere from 412 parts per million (ppm) all the way down to 411.87 ppm.

That would have been a reduction of 13/100 of a part per million. It is imperceptible The computer model predictions have ALL failed, yet people want other people, poor people, to die today due to lack of cheap energy and clean water.

Obama said that above 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, people would start having a lot more severe asthma problems. Humans breathe out 40,000 ppm CO2 with every normal breath.

If there were no harm associated with the "green" policies, then it would not matter, but people are actually being harmed right now by energy poverty. People in Germany are illegally cutting wood in the historic Black Forest, just to heat their homes and stay alive. People are being forced to decide between heat and food, due to the massive increases in energy prices in Ontario, so that we can pay 15x the market rate for wind electricity and be forced to pay the Americans to take our excess electricity. Meanwhile, the only true green energy in Canada; hydroelectric power, has to be shut down to keep from destabilizing the grid when the wind is blowing. That's right, water is diverted from the turbines at Niagara Falls, so you can pay 15x the rate to subsidize big green. Don't lie to yourself, those are not wind farms, they are not farming the wind, they are farming the subsidies and taking money out of your pocket by theft.

Who do you think suffers? Leonardo DiCaprio, who stayed on one of the world's largest yachts during the world cup? It has an estimated 1 million litre fuel tank and a staff of 80 people. Leo didn't fly to Brazil on Delta. (edited to delete the unconfirmed number of litres of fuel burned per hour)

CO2 levels have no correlation with temperature & never have. Even in Al Gore's Powerpoint presentation, where he allows no questions and refuses to debate anyone, he neglects to tell you that the temperature graph and the CO2 graph are on different timelines. The increase in CO2 follows the warm periods by an average of 800 years.

If Gore believes what he says, why does he travel by private jet? My parents lived in Gore's Belle Meade neighborhood in Nashville for a while. Gore's house is on record as using more electricity in one month than the other houses did in a full year. Al Gore took exactly one science class in university, he got a D.

His professor in that class had a theory called global warming, Gore said that professor was his biggest influence on the subject. Later, that professor said that he was wrong and he apologized. Al Gore said his old professor was senile and should not be listened to any longer. Al Gore did study Divinity at Vanderbilt. He could have a clue on how to start a religion.

Michael Crichton was an MD, and Anthropologist, and a scientist, most people know him for writing _Jurrasic Park_. See what he had to say on the subject:

Michael Crichton on Global Warming as a Religion.

Crichton answers a student's question - video.

The real question is, how can you still believe in anthropogenic global warming when all the models have given FAILED predictions, every single time? When every catastrophic prediction since the 1980's has come and gone without the climate armageddon promised. How long do you keep believing in this doomsday cult? If this offends you, and cannot be questioned, does that mean it is your religion?

The US is at historic lows for hurricanes. All studies show that there are not, in fact, more extreme weather occurances. Why does the Australian Met office say that last year's heat wave was the hottest on record, then only include the records since 1900? There was a heat wave in Australia in the late 1800's that lasted far longer, was hotter, and killed hundreds of people. There are actual temperature records and newpaper reports from that time in Australian history. These are facts, not predictions of computer models, desgined by fallible humans.

Please read Anthony Watts (retired meteoroligist and statistician), Steve McIntyre (statistician: he killed the Hockey stick), Bjorn Lomborg (a believer, who will show you the societal cost to these policies), Judith Curry (climate scientist extraordinaire at Georgia Tech, who was excoriated for expressing scientific doubt), and Steve Goddard (who has proven that the temperature records of the past are being illegally and unethically lowered to make the present appear warmer), as well as www.Jonova.com & www.nofrakkinconsensus.com and make an informed decision. Research Climategate and read the leaked emails for yourselves.

I cannot fault anyone for buying into this, originally, I had too. The news media has been hard selling it for years. When you do an internet search and most of the results tell you something is true, does that mean that it is true? You may get angry with me for suggesting that you have been duped, so go do the math and research for yourselves. Is it possible that you have been lied to? When they give a stat like: 97% of all scientists agree, it sounds compelling. Isn't it interesting how that study looked at 10,000 papers and out of those, only chose 70 something to claim a 97% consensus from?

Once you've made the decision to look at it as a scientist and look for actual proof, you have to question who actually benefits from keeping the lie alive. Hint: it isn't us.

BTW, I've been to the Antarctic peninsula, it is not melting. Gore went there in 2012 to prove how much had melted, notice that he never followed up on that?

The Australian Ship of Fools was full of climate scientists & journalists who were going to Antarctica to document the melting since the Mawson Expedition of 1912. Once they got stuck in the ice, they magically became tourists, in the press. Remember how ice breaker ships got stuck trying to get them out? Mawson, yeah, he sailed right up to the land. The Ship of Fools was iced in 20km or more from land.

Where are their measurements and reports? That's right, they didn't publish them, because they didn't find what they wanted to find. The leader of the Ship of Fools owns a for profit company that somehow magically disposes of CO2. Most ironically, in order to get an accurate forecast of when the ship might be able to get free, Anthony Watts had to be called in. Watts' prediction was right on the money and the ship was freed when he said it could be.

Dr Kyla Dillard


Watts Up With That?
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change


56 Comments

And, yet, my children's school in Saskatchewan is still spewing this crap into the childrens' brains as early as grade 1. Why can't teachers seem to do the math??? Uggggg!

Thanks Dr. Kyla.
GB...hopefully you do whatever you can to teach your kids the truth.

My grandchildren are also being fed these lies in their schools in Saskatchewan, although my oldest grandchildren argue with their teachers with facts.

Great job Dr. Kyla.

Thanks, Dr Kyla, DVM. As a fellow "scientist", I'll take your assessment of climate change science with a grain of salt.

You seems fairly well-read on the literature, though based on the sources you've cited, you appear to be focused on only one side of the debate, and mostly secondary source with an advocacy bent (e.g. blogs, popular science writing). Do you read much of (A) the primary research literature (i.e. original research papers in peer-reviewed journals), or (B) the arguments and rebuttals from the other side of the debate (e.g., www.skepticalscience.com)?

After all, dismissing those sources out of hand would actually be the least scientific thing one could do.

You're right, but let's keep the numbers realistic. The slightest flaw will have global warmenists discounting your whole argument. "That yacht burns 50,000 gallons of diesel an hour, while docked." A well-maintained diesel engine burns about 0.4 pounds of fuel per hour for each unit of horsepower it produces. The engines used on board are two Lurssen developments of Colt-Pielstick 12PA6 C STC diesel aggregates. Each of the two main engines has own output power of 7,990 hp at 1060 rpm. Some quick math shows that yacht probably uses more like 750 gallons an hour at top speed.

Otherwise, an excellent article. I wish newspapers would print stuff like this and then maybe I'd buy them.

Never has been about the science. Always been about power and money. The leaders and adherents to the religion never want to talk about primary data, that being the raw temperature data, they only use the secondary data, that being the adjusted data. They also want to ignore statistical analysis. If we accept the premise that the earth is between 10 and 20 billion years old and we know we have a few hundred years of somewhat reliable data and a few thousand years of estimated data, we know that statistically one day is not statistically different from a few thousand years.
Lastly the adherents always toss out words like peer reviewed, it confuses us commoners. Peer reviewed means that you get a few of your friends who believe what you do, to read your papers and ''surprize'' agree with you.

If only more scientists had this much integrity. 10 or so years ago when my kids were in school I told them this was all money theft in a different form as their dull socialist teachers were spewing this BS, my youngest one was singled out by a teacher and made her life miserable because of my teaching them to think for themselves. Now one of the kids is well on his way to be a scientist in brain research, when I ask him if his labs can fudge the research like these glowball warmists did his reply, "only if you want to end your career". If only more careers were ended when fraud is exposed, wishful thinking in this Kartrashian world with 1400 dollar a month media twits following Choles and Kims every slovenly move instead of exposing fraudsters.

"Do you read much of (A) the primary research literature (i.e. original research papers in peer-reviewed journals),".

DO YOU? If you say yes, than please point me to where we may find DR. Mann's research, the ORIGINAL research, that produced the hockey stick, not some computer model. TKS in advance.

Anyone who seriously quotes www.skepticalscience.com as a "reliable" source is a fool, or mendacious.

And, Dr. Kyla, I hold no brief for Di Crappio, but those numbers for his yacht sound bogus. A decimal or two got dropped, methinks. A fuel capacity of a million liters = (roughly) 250,000 gallons. Burning 50,000 gallons per hour to run the generators? It would empty the tanks in 5 hours idling in the slip. Wild-ass guess? 50 gallons per hour sounds like a better figure for fueling the gensets.

"Dr. Peter" is wasting Dr. Kyla's time.

The IPCC has already done the work on summarizing the science. All one needs to do is to read pages 769 and 1011 of the IPCC's AR5 Working Group I report.

You will find that the IPCC concluded that the current eighteen year halt in global warming was unpredicted and remains unexplained. The first chart on page 1011 clearly demonstrates how the models have failed and continue to diverge further and further from reality.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

Why did the IPCC 'bury' these critical facts in the back of a highly technical report and simply ignore them in the highly publicized "Summary for Policy Makers?"

That's a whole another story!

I never believed there was global warming from the get go ... When I was a kid, I remember seeing an oddly dressed person on the street with sign about the "End is Near", I asked my mom what that was about and my mother said "there is always someone with a dooms day message and they are always full of shit" ..... that was a direct quote. I believed her ... still do.

The slightest flaw will have global warmenists discounting your whole argument.

And the MFM gives the catastrophist, screeching bedwetters a nuclear-powered megaphone while we get a ball gag. Huge, astonishing blunders and acts of obvious malfeasance from the doomers are overlooked.

"current eighteen year halt in global warming was unpredicted and remains unexplained" THEY ARE WRONG,WRONG,WRONG. Maybe, just maybe the sun has something to do with warming and cooling the earth! Lies by David Suzuki. Throw that POS in JAIL.

Dr. Peter:

"After all, dismissing those sources out of hand would actually be the least scientific thing one could do"

You mean the way the climate alarmists/allegers do when they call those who don't drink the cool-aid "deniers", and dismiss debate by saying the "science is settled"?

Any idea when Maurice Strong might come back from China to face a US Grand Jury?

And i'll bet even with the snow up to 7 to 8 feet the idiots from GREENPEACE an spoiled little snots like Al Gore,Robert Jennedy Jr and crack-pots like James Hansen will blame it on Global Warming(I dont blame Tillper for divorcing Al Gore he is a paranoid)I just wish it would have left Gore and Kennedy stranded

I appreciate that info. I' will admit, I got that number from a TV news program. It's more about the generators required to run all the power systems than it is about the forward moving engines.

Because I know math science...... That I deny all religion.!! Weired comparison and link! These two subject are not related what you just said proof you may have symtom od delusion disorder come from smoke marjina or crak or drink lots of LCBO wins daily or watch too much geography channels or play gambeling or kind of lottry witth lost income or have bad parent busy working outside force you on sunday if your parent were christian force you to church or friday if your parent were muslim force you in mosque or saturday if your parent were jewish force you in temple or one freind athesm affect you by too many indian and chineese athesm new immigrants.or memebr of gaey excuse, Or one of one out 4 canadian with mental illness that reason you left religion tell me if you know math what did you invented or published in science magazine none! I dislike people blame their sin wrong choice to religion. Gov of canada not help all problem resolved instead hire wrrong people on board to take side one part of mafia games or gamble

Thank you, Dr Dillard. I hope to see more posts from you here at SDA in the future.

Because I know math science...... That I deny all religion.!! Weired comparison and link! These two subject are not related what you just said proof you may have symtom od delusion disorder come from smoke marjina or crak or drink lots of LCBO wins daily or watch too much geography channels or play gambeling or kind of lottry witth lost income or have bad parent busy working outside force you on sunday if your parent were christian force you to church or friday if your parent were muslim force you in mosque or saturday if your parent were jewish force you in temple or one freind athesm affect you by too many indian and chineese athesm new immigrants.or memebr of gaey excuse yourself,Or one of one out4 canadian with mental illness thatreason you left religion tell me if youknow math what did you invented or published in science magazine none! I dislike people blame their sin wrong choice to religion. Gov of canada not help all problem resolved instead hire wrrong people on board to take side one part of mafia games

Oh, good. An ESL (or anglophone looney) troll. Just what this thread needs along with a "scientist".

"After all, dismissing those sources out of hand would actually be the least scientific thing one could do." - Dr Peter

My favorite item from "Skeptical Science" was when they left their internal discussion page open to the internet and found out that they privately believe that the hockey stick is indefensible in any hones sense, but they have to defend it anyway.

I don’t mean to be the pessimist of the group here but Mc[Steve McIntyre] brought up some very good points about the original hockeystick. The confidence affirmed to it by many on our side of the debate was vastly overstated and as has been shown in the recent literature greater variability on the centennial scale exists than was shown. The statistical methodology used by Mann did rely too much on tree rings which still are in debate over their usefulness to reconstruct temperature and particularly their ability to record low-frequency temperature variations. I’ve personally seen work that is unpublished that challenges every single one of his reconstructions because they all either understate or overstate low-frequency variations. My personal experience has been that Moberg still has the best reconstruction and his one does show greater variability. That’s why I don’t like to talk the HS stuff, because I know a lot of people who have doubts about the accuracy of the original HS. -Dr Robert Way Noted climate Scientist when he thought nobody could see what he wrote. Behind the SKS Curtain

Wouldn't be very scientific not to hear all the facts, eh Dr Peter?

Watts Up With That links to the actual papers in question. This is not about simply reading opinions. I highly recommend reading Steve Goddard's work on the temperature record.

Dr Kyla Dillard is SO right, Dr. Peter is wrong.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF is on the warmists. This is a basic rule of science, and it's called the NULL HYPOTHESIS. Here's what happens when any scientist anywhere sees something happening that no one else has seen before.

A scientist's job is to discover new stuff, so they study this thing (phenomenon). After a while they present their data to colleagues, who try to dismiss it as utter nonsense. That's is their job, to doubt. (Nullius in Verba, 'take no one's word for it'.) This doubt is called the "null hypothesis". It says that there is no such phenomenon.

For example, that's what scientists did with the cold fusion scam. They said Nullius in Verba, let's see the data. The data showed no cold fusion, so they said, "The null hypothesis says 'there is no such thing as cold fusion'. You have not disproved the null hypothesis." That's it that's all, end of story.

In the warmist research, there are two main null hypothesis. (1) The Earth is not heating up, and (2) even if it was heating up humans don't cause it. Both Null Hypotheses must be disproved. So warmists must do a lot of proving, and their hypotheses must account for all the data.

If they can't disprove both, that's their problem, no ours. It's not 'maybe yes, maybe no', it's NO. If some data say there is warming, and other data says no, then the null hypothesis wins, because the hypothesis does not fit the data. Explaining half the data is not enough. If the warmist hypothesis was correct, it would fit all the data.

They can't put other scientists in jail because they doubt. Scientists are supposed to doubt, it's their job.

Amazingly, the warmists use politics to bypass this fundamental principal of science. And stunningly to me, the skeptics never point out this obvious failure.

Therefore, Global warming is bunk, Human-caused warming is bunk, and it stays bunk until all the data is explained, not just half it.

I hope everyone takes the time to follow the link to Michael Crichton's address to the Commonwealth Club, about the new religion of environmentalism. It's fabulously concise and true!

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/2818/Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx

No student should be allowed to graduate grade 12 before reading this speech, as well as Matt Ridley's, "The Rational Optimist".

I'm from Missouri, so you are going to have to provide some more credibility on that "I am a scientist" schtick. I agree with you that AGW isn't happening but your article has all the markings of having been written by a 10 year old. There is that lame excuse that "I had to buy into it because the media was hard selling"????? Seriously????? I mean SERIOUSLY?????? About that yacht that needs a supertanker to follow it around because it uses 50,000 GALLONS of fuel PER HOUR just to keep the lights on. Yeah. OK backs away from his keyboard least he say something he really regrets.

I left 'the religion' way back in the '90's when Cretin first proclaimed globull warmism, then promptly shut down most of Canada's far northern weather stations, supposedly because it would cost $300,000 per year to keep them operating, while simultaneously spending $3,000,000 on jets to fly himself around the globe. I thought to myself then and there, self, if this dick actually believed the crap he is spewing he would behave as if he believed it. He doesn't behave as is if he believes it, so why should I believe it.

"The statistical methodology used by Mann did rely too much on tree rings which still are in debate over their usefulness to reconstruct temperature and particularly their ability to record low-frequency temperature variations."

Another study of tree rings that was diametrically opposed to Mann's study was put forward by Libby/Pandolfi in the 70's. This theory predicted a cooling period, much like we've been able to observe over these last few years. The problem with the AGW crowd is if they are right we'll see a larger part of North America producing crops, this would be a bonus; however if they are wrong we'll see diminished crop production in the American corn belt. In this event the Irish potato famine will pale in comparison, and all the carbon taxes it the world will not relieve it.

Tim, I believe your post is what the warmists would call "unhelpful" or perhaps, "problematic". Good job!

"The statistical methodology used by Mann did rely too much on tree rings".....errrrr....ONE tree and 4 RINGS.

There...fixed that for ya.

I was born on a Saskatchewan 85 years ago to parents saw the need for at least some education more the grade eight public school like most of the neighborhood kids got. With High School behind me I enlisted in the RCAF and was selected to become a pilot. I took a great interest in Meteorology for two reasons, having lived through the "Dirty Thirties" and seeing first hand what it did to prairie farmers, and a Meteorology instructor from England who had experience with aviation needs, it was a natural fall back for me if I failed to pass pilot training. I did in fact pass pilot training and was selected to take training flying Vampire jets. I completed three tours or duty in Europe flying Vampires, Sabres and CF104 Starfighters. While on a tour of duty in Cold Lake I was switched over to flying helicopters. I observed all kinds of weather with tours of duty in the RCAF then when I left the service in the pretty much all over the USA, Burma, and a goodly proportion of the Canadian Artic in including Ellesmere Island. The sum total of all that experience lead me to my belief that the whole "Global" warming movement was a hoax. That started from the deliberate lying with the formation of the IPCC. The present liars are those who obtain a healthy income from their well paid functions only by falsifying climate change figures. Thank you very much for DR. Kyla for your candour.

Who is Dr. Kyla Dillard and where can I read more about her?

yes Leo, you'v done an excellent job smacking that fool(Dr Peters) down. One does not dignify garbage as to the like of the global warming/climate change by studying it, you refute with facts, or fact based logical dissection, as Dr Kyla did. Whe really cares about the fuel use, there may be several explanations as to the source of the error, but that has to do with the hypocrisy of the shills, and not the scientific facts. It doesn't matter how many read it, or how many times it is read, if it is intentional misinformation it is a lie, and lies are treated as such, and not as science.

NME666 Sorry to disagree with you. If you are going to base your argument on facts then you had better have your facts straight. If you are quoting inflated numbers for any reason you are simply doing what the other guys are doing and that is exaggerating. Saying "the sea will rise 10 meters" and "the yacht burns 50,000 gallons an hour has the same discrediting effect when it is shown that both statements are not true. IOW let the other guys lie. We have truth on our side and don't need to exaggerate.

Good post.
Expect ever more such comments.
The Cult of Calamitous Climate is collapsing, soon the anointed ones will start eating their own.
It will not be very long before comedians use the line;"This one is so stupid they bought into Manmade global warming"
It was never about science, CAGW is and was a tool to rob the many for the benefit of the well connected few.
Ontario is how the stupid and greedy do it.

Now their cover is blown, watch the politicians throw their "scientific advisors" to the mob.
Canada had better prosecute all the enablers of Uncle Mo, or hang our heads in shame.
This shabby grab for power through the UN has cost many poor brown people their lives and has retarded the climb out of poverty of many more.
Eugenics by another name and logo,same actions and results.

As for those assine "alternative energy" rapes of the taxpayer… Retributive justice works for me, those who approved these schemes can run on the human hamster wheel*** until they generate the monetary equivalent of the energy and money they have cost us.
*** A vertical human hamster wheel attached to a generator.
Probable output about 50Watts/hour/runner.That is 0.05kWh.
Makes me snicker to imagine these wynners running forever.

Joe, honest mistakes get made on both side, were those over stated numbers come from I don't know, or care, they are NOT part of the core discussion, nor do they relate to the core discussion. So effectively they are irrelevant, even more so than 10 meter sea rise, as I'v seen 10 foot sea rise, and both are irrelevant to the discussion of AGW. If AGW is a fact, then, and only then is the sea rise a discussion, but until the facts of AGW are sorted out the rise is out.
So Joe, your analogy of fuel vs sea rise is bullshit, Kapeach? Try sticking to the core discussion and don't be side tracked by your ego.

Kyla, you've made a good attempt and my personal research comes up with similar conclusions. As for sites and articles rebutting the skeptics' points, if you explore them you will find they are decidedly unscientific. Time and time again some warmist has cited something to prove their point - I think they hope nobody actually reads it - and it's almost always off point, irrelevant, skewed or simply nonsense. I think some serious scientists could debate and there could be a difference of opinion of AGW, but no serious scientists still believes the alleged, unproven and now discredited idea that humans are "changing the chemistry of the earth," or causing catastrophic warming. Saying models are just that and shouldn't be looked at in isolation is also disingenuous because the warmist argument has used them for years as the authoritative forecast for future temperatures and now they're not sure, but there apparently is "other science available" that explains the discrepancies, but there simply isn't.

Anyway, try as you might, when the warmists has to actually give some thought to their opinions, out come the non-sequitirs, and the two most popular now given their dying case - ad hominems and appeals to authority. How many times do their arguments like "97% of scientists agree" or "2014 warmest year on record' have to be clearly discredited before they will admit there's a problem. Answer: Never. They are locked in emotionally, mostly because the prescription fits their worldview - lots of taxes and putting it to capitalism - because that's what this thing is really about.

I have given up debating them other than to point out their obvious fallacies and inform them nobody cares what they believe anymore - the gravy train is screeching to a grinding halt. As you said, few would care about the theories of AGW if it weren't for the obscene waste it have spawned.

The upcoming election will make, but more likely break, the warmists. If the Grits and Dippers propose anything resembling in any way carbon trading, pricing, taxation, regulation or paralysis by analysis, they will be dead on arrival. The American voter allowed themselves to be fooled because they thought change would be a good thing. That's a one time thing and won't be repeated. A cursory look at elections, in particular the Austrian and British Columbia recently held, give evidence of how truly discredited this idea truly is. People intuitively know is the problem was as serious as the warmists point out, we wouldn't be exporting fossil fuels to China, the emission goliath, whose growth alone will outstrip the entire output of several first world nations. No, but let's shut down the oil sands. Why - because they think they can. They are wrong.

I applaud your efforts - unfortunately you're only preaching to the choir; but take heart, most reasonable people see this scam for what it is and will only pay it lip service in the future and will never agree to hand over taxes in support of it.

Ummmm, Earth is 10 to 20 billion years old? Try 4.5 billion, +/- a few. The whole Universe is only estimated at 14 billion years old, if current physicists are to be believed. It pays to be somewhat "up" on niggly stuff like that when trying to refute the Warmists. They're "credentialed" you know.

A geologist.

Something that you'll never see on any "The End is Nigh" site? or paper... or whatever.

(edited to delete the unconfirmed number .......)

Dr. Kyla:

I am inclined to be sympathetic to your scepticism about global warming and am further inclined to cut you a lot of slack for small errors when you are writing about your opinions on the matter but how in the heck did you let such a preposterous figure like "50,000 gallons an hour" get through your shit filter?

"Because as a scientist, I can do the math."

No you're not and you can't count either.

I love the fact that I included a WAY too big a number in this blog post. If the Warm-mongers spent an hour looking for illogical inconsistencies in the studies offen quoted as truth, I.e. The 97% consensus, could they still support this giant power and money grab?

To slam me, for an error In a blog post line, about a story on a Hollywood celebrity, yet not seem to notice that the hockey stick graph depended on one tree's rings in Siberia, as well as a statistical trick to 'hide the decline' shows the level of hypocrisy that we are dealing with. I wonder what would happen if those same people read the Climategate emails with such a critical eye?

This is a blog post, not a scientific paper. This is my personal story of how I went from a true believer to leaving the religion. I guess Apostates must be attacked. Where else does that happen?

Maureen, I'm just a regular Canadian who, like Kate, listens to the media and thinks, "You don't speak for me!"

"Follow the money & you will see where the truth lies"

I have to slightly disagree a bit, Dr. Kayla. Instead, one should follow the politics. Money is certainly part of the equation, but, overall, what this whole thing is about is political power, like all other Progressive politics. Progressives are what Jonah Goldberg referred to as "nice fascists". The Cult of Climatology is using AGW/Climate Change/Climate disruption and all the other names as a way to push their notions of a Central Government that controls everything, including our personal lives, our economy, private entities, requiring adherence and devotion to the Central Government, all while increasing taxation which it spreads to Those It Likes.

Oh, and all while the Warmists themselves refuse to practice what they preach.

"Maureen, I'm just a regular Canadian who, like Kate, listens to the media and thinks, "You don't speak for me!""

Exactly! The media doesn't speak for me -- SDA and WUWT speak for me!

“ You appear to be focused on only one side of the debate.”
Dr Peter, who the hell do you think you’re talking to here?
There never was a debate. People like Gore and Suzuki wouldn’t allow it. It was the global warming fanatics who ended the discussion, a discussion they allowed no one to have. They immediately came up with the line “the science is settled.” And the lazy Mainstream Media with very few exceptions bought right into it.
First it was CAGW ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.” Then it was just AGW because the Warmists started to get a little pushback. Then it was Climate Change. And all the while the Warmists started with the name calling, some even declared if we disagreed we should be jailed. How’s that for two sides of a story!”
Since this BS debate began I have never seen a debate on Television between the two factions. Never! Every documentary broadcast I ever saw on the issue warned of a catastrophe ahead due global warming and climate change without ever presenting a view from scientists who disagreed.
Gore’s movie was and is still being shown to children in school without an opposing view. How’s that for two sides of a debate.
Global warming today’s version of ‘Climate Change’ is a scam.
The Climategate e-mails are evidence of a scam, but there was hardly a word about it in the MSM.
Global warming is about money. And I don’t want those snot nosed bas-tards taking mine. I’m fed up with the whole miserable, lying, scheming lot of them.
Quite frankly I wish there was global warming because I’m tired of freezing my ass off and shovelling snow. So take your BS to the CBC, they’ll be happy to hear from you.

A word to the wise Kyla: Check your facts BEFORE you reach a conclusion and be suspicious of ALL sources of information. Oh and one more thing, NEVER trust a gossip site or magazine when looking for hard data.

Finally read a little history. Observe how mankind is prone to mass panics/hysteria and the irrational actions we take to escape/avoid the fate predicted in the panic. Then when some thing like catastrophic AGW becomes the rage you are well prepared to not become a victim of the nonsense. When I first heard of AGW I didn't have the facts to refute it but I did recognize the pattern and realized that this was another Salem witch hunt on steroids.

If warming exists then prove it. With unadulterated data. With completely transparent data sources sources and modeling formulas. Prove it.

I have a confession to make. I wasn't ever a true believer. The idea that a trace gas in the atmosphere could force climate change is ludicrous.

The major green house gas is water vapor, and since water vapor cannot be controlled, nor taxed, it is conveniently left out of the news reports. They speak of 'dangerous green house gases' then pivot to a story on CO2.

Because most of the population is scientifically ignorant, they get away with it. Any one of the people tearing apart my blog post could completely discredit the theory of global warming. One has to wonder why they haven't. My suspicion is that it is because they see it as a way to force through their political agenda.

For someone to take the time to shred inconsistencies in a blog post, yet have no quarrel with Al Gore transposing the graph of an 800 year lag in increased CO2 following warm periods in order to make it appear causative, certainly suggests that they are fully aware of and support the deception.

Isn't that interesting? Why do these people hate the poor?

"For someone to take the time to shred inconsistencies in a blog post, yet have no quarrel with Al Gore transposing the graph of an 800 year lag in increased CO2 following warm periods in order to make it appear causative, certainly suggests that they are fully aware of and support the deception."

Sigh. Here's the problem with your position, Kyla: you're just rehashing a series of talking points that have long since been rebutted, while steadfastly refusing to address the substance of those rebuttals. This particular one about the 800 year time lag between the start of global temperature changes and CO2 levels is literally 11 years old.

In other words, what you think you know, these little tidbits of info that you think will cleverly stump your climate change-supporting friends and family, were addressed a decade ago. Here's just one of a multitude of plain language summaries of the standard scientific rebuttal (basically that CO2 has an amplifying effect, and is therefore both a cause and an effect of tempertature rises): www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/. It was published in 2007. There are many others.

Do you have any factual response to the scientific substance of these counter-arguments, or will you just dismissively wave it away as yet another part of the massive global socialist scam? The latter is your prerogative, of course, but it would mean that you're willfully ignoring any argument that challenges your position, which ironically is exactly what you accuse your opponents of doing. So what does that make you?


Okay, explain how the 800 year lag has been addressed. It was noted 11'years ago, and dismissed by the media, not explained.

Answer me one first, eh? If every IPCC. climate model says that CO2 forcing drives global warming, Then how can we be 18 years with zero warming trend while CO2 has continued to rise and still believe these computer models approximate the truth?

In science, I do not have to disprove your theory, you have to prove it. Global warm-mongers are not in court where they are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on them. They have to answer to critics like Judith Curry, Bjorn Lomborg, Anthony Watts, and Lord Monckton.

So far, what I've seen is manipulation of data, refusals to share the raw data, and collusion to keep people who disagreed out of the peer reviewed journals, and now, actually secretly going back and lowering the numbers from actual recorded temperature records, to make the recent past appear to be the warmest.

Yes, the theories have been debunked, for more than eleven years, yet you still have Wynne & Trudeau pushing for a tax on an element in the periodic table.

Yes, the Climategate emails show the levels of deception; yes, Steve Goddard has recently proven and called out the artificial lowering of actual temperature readings, yet schools are still teaching this as fact. Why could that be? Who benefits from keeping this wealth redistribution scam alive?

I clearly stated to quote the exact words you disagree with, then post the studies that prove your view. Going off on, "That was dealt with 11 years ago," does not meet that standard.

"Answer me one first, eh? If every IPCC. climate model says that CO2 forcing drives global warming, Then how can we be 18 years with zero warming trend while CO2 has continued to rise and still believe these computer models approximate the truth?"

A few reasons. First, 18 years is very short period of time for global climate trend observations. Yes, 18 yrs is the longest period of plateauing that's been observed, but over the past century and a bit, similar hiatuses of 12-15 years have been observed, so 18 yrs is not necessarily the conclusive damning proof you might think it is. Second, even when taking the most favourably starting point for one's period of observation (to capture the 1998 El Niño), the observed change over the past 18 yr period isn't precisely "zero" -- it's still very slightly positive, though the exact value is indeed smaller than predicted by models. It's a small point, but one worth making: a more or less flat-line in the context of a century of very statistically significant increase isn't damning proof (a very statistically significant DECLINE would be closer to the kind of coffin nail that you're hoping for). Third, choose a different stating point, and the observed change in the past 20 years becomes statistically significant in the positive direction. The point being, the chosen starting point matters. Fourth, scientist now have a few theories to explain the hiatus. It's not proof, of course, but it shows an honest and ongoing attempt to explain the observed phenomena -- hardly the MO of a bunch scam artists.

You asked for links to studies, but with respect, I doubt your technical abilities to interpret the primary research. So, here is a link to yet another plain language summary -- links to the original research are referenced therein, should you with to consult the technical literature: www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525.

"Okay, explain how the 800 year lag has been addressed. It was noted 11'years ago, and dismissed by the media, not explained."

I already sent you a link to the scientific research that addresses that lag. See my post above. It's to a plain language popular science blog, which I figured would be easier for you to comprehend than links to a bunch of published papers (though that blog post contains those link, should you want to look deeper).

For good measure, here's another, also with links to original research: www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html?full=true

"In science, I do not have to disprove your theory, you have to prove it. Global warm-mongers are not in court where they are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on them. They have to answer to critics like Judith Curry, Bjorn Lomborg, Anthony Watts, and Lord Monckton."

Yes, that's true. That's how science works. By the same token, though, when "warm-mongers" (cute) provide those rebuttals to the critics' challenges, you have to actually engage with the substance of those rebuttals rather than simply ignore them while deafly repeating the original challenge.

So, go ahead. Your turn, "Doctor".

Leave a comment

Archives

November 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Recent Comments

  • Eleanor Lamb: Invaluable analysis ! Coincidentally , if people wants to merge read more
  • Jack: Kassouf: If we're talking about a World Cup without the read more
  • google account login gmail: Don't even think about buying thoughts about You - Tube read more
  • chinese restaurants near me: Hello! I could have sworn I've been to this website read more
  • Kyla: http://www.netnewsledger.com/2015/02/13/letter-scientific-fraud-underlies-global-warming-scare/ I am far, far from an expert, and make read more
  • Kyla: Eighteen years is longer than the warming trend that the read more
  • Kt: "Answer me one first, eh? If every IPCC. climate model read more
  • Kyla: Okay, explain how the 800 year lag has been addressed. read more
  • Kt: "For someone to take the time to shred inconsistencies in read more
  • Kyla: I have a confession to make. I wasn't ever a read more