As tens of thousands of Warmists hob-nob in Paris for the latest Conference on the Parties, the 21st edition, spewing out vast amounts of “carbon pollution”, there are lots of facts that inconvenient, and glossed over. We could note that these same members of the Cult of Climastrology fail to live the lives they say Everyone Else should be forced to live. We could note that everything seems to be aimed not at fixing the climate (as if that could really happen, except in a fiction book or Warmist computer model. Same thing), but in finding ways to redistribute wealth and institute lots of restrictions on people, private entities, and economies. And then there are these four, as written by CFACT. Of course, we know Warmists will attack the messenger, not rebut the message
“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade†– University of Alabama, Huntsville
“The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.†“After 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.†– Remote Sensing Systems
“Satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor global temperature change.†– NASA, April, 1990
There are many other quote, but, my favorite is that last one. Oh, and
All countries’ commitments from Paris = less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.
So, essentially, per modeling, no statistically significant change.
We also learn that sea rise is only 1mm to 3mm per year. This is not dangerous, it is not accelerating, and it is well within the average of sea rise over the last 7,000 years, when the great melting from the last glacial age ended. In a normal Holocene warm period, we should be seeing much more sea rise than is occurring.
Polar bear populations are up, the Arctic is not melting away, nor is Antarctica.
Extreme weather? Not happening. If anything, some types of “extreme weather” are actually down. Even the IPCC admitted in their 5th assessment report
“There is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.
Virtually nothing that is happening in the world is the fault of human caused warming from carbon dioxide output. Human output of greenhouse gases has a minimal effect on the global atmosphere. This doesn’t mean Mankind has no effect. Things like ocean pollution, land use, and the Urban Heat Island effect have quite a bit of influence on perceived climate, as do the massaging of data. But, there is nothing dangerous going, there is nothing that hasn’t happened before during other Holocene warm periods going on, and we’re not all doomed. The computer models have failed, the global temperature is not going to shoot up a “best case” scenario of 1.2C (3.6F) by 2100, nor the worst cases offered.
It’s not a science, it’s a political movement. Nothing more, nothing less.
“It’s not a science, it’s a political movement.” It’s a religious cult.
CFACTCFIB’s four “facts” aren’t facts at all, are they?1.
That’s a C-FIB. Thermometers all over the Earth tell a different story. The Earth is warming, the ice is melting.
2.
That’s a C-FIB. The rate of sea level rise is increasing. It was about 1 mm/year in the 1800s and is 3.2 mm/year for the past 30 years.
3.
That’s a C-FIB. No one knows how many polar bears there were in the 60s. Most polar bear populations are decreasing, a few are increasing, some are stable.
4.
That’s just C-SILLY.
CFIB is a energy industry lobbying group that also sponsors Republican activist Marc Morano’s Climate Depot disinformation website. CFIB is a political organ, not a scientific one.
“That’s a C-FIB. Thermometers all over the Earth tell a different story. The Earth is warming, the ice is melting.”
No, they don’t. The “faux” scientists who “adjust” the readings of those thermometers, invariably in the direction of “hotter”, tell a different story. But it’s not a truthful story. It’s a religious cult.
All your other points are equally worthless, but I’m not spending my Saturday on a cultist. :-)
–Andrew
Jeff,
First, your comments are wrong.
Now, if C-FIB is lying due to money received from the oil industry (thought why the oil industry would care?) then does that mean that the 99 scientist who promote the climate cult are lying as they receive money from grants and other sources favorable to a climate concept? Certainly in the field of medicine, those who promoted the cholesterol lies were being paid by the government and big pharma.
Teach according to the RSS sat data that you keep posting you must not believe that 2014 AND 2015 are the hottest years on record. Is that true?
Teach during other periods of Holocene scientists have always been able to point to a cause, during this period of warming what do YOU believe is the cause? Certainly not our Sun which is in fact slightly cooler now than it was in 1960. Weird huh ? Less solar power and yet we have an increase in temps? http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
NOAA says that the Global Surface Temps will be .2C higher than 1998
I don’t live in the middle of the troposphere I live on the surface of the Earth and it is getting hotter here.
David now even Saudi Arabia believes that carbon pollution must/will end. The research that proved that smoking was bad for health, was this also tainted because the government WANTED those results? Was in fact as The Heartland Institute (now one of the loudest shouters of HOAX) correct when they published “Joe Camel is Innocent” ? Were the Moon Landings faked also? Teach seems to feel that this is a CONSPIRACY !! what other unseen conspiracies are seen only by those with superior knowledge? Are the illuminati in control? Are they behind this “hoax”
Better hide, johnny, the strawmen are real and they’re coming to get you.
Thanks for the chuckles, ‘tard.
Andrew the government of every nation believes in AGW
Teach please tell us how the Urban Heat effect changes the ocean temps. Please.
Please tell us what percent of the Earth’s surface is effected.
Andrew,
Satellite “data” is more manipulated than is thermometer data. Thermometers measure surface temperature, satellite sensors measure some type of radiation, somewhere above the surface, and “scientists” (e.g, Roy Spencer) use computer models to convert the radiation values to an estimate of “temperature”.
Satellite “data†is more manipulated than is thermometer data.
False.
John,
Your comments were as stupid as ever. Now, my question was not about AGW, it was why you don’t believe that scientist on the government dole will lie just as you claim those paid by big oil will. Why should I give a damn what SA believes? They believe a guy road up in the sky on a horse or something like that. Then on conspiracy, there is none that I know of, but there is a discourse and in our world you must follow the discourse or you are prosecuted. Why is there a leaning to AGW despite a lack of evidence? Because it is political and there is power in it.
Really, J? The land based temperature system only covers about 50% of the earth’s surface. “Scientists” use infilling, or guessing, at what the temperature “should” be where they have no data. So no, satellite data is not adjusted more than land based data. And J, like John often does, be-clowns himself bringing up the “if they get paid by a denier group they must be wrong” mantra, obviously ignoring the fact that if that were true, then the alarmist camp would be indicted even more so because of the much greater sums of money they receive from the government, as said above. John: “I don’t live in the middle of the troposphere, it’s getting hotter here.” The troposphere, according to the settled science of hoaxism, is where the alarmists said the earth would warm first.
drowningpuppies,
false
>Most polar bear populations are decreasing, a few are increasing, some are stable.
They are all increasing..
On this one I can tell you from personal experience your comment is blatantly false.
Those who tell you this are counting on you not knowing any different.
At least this 5 minute news story attempts to tel it like it is.
and it is CBC, as pro climate change as it gets, but even they could not stomach these false claims
An CBC unbiassed news report on Polar bear health
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Environment/ID/2505129180/
Phil,
C-“FACT” claimed there were 5000 polar bears in the 60s and more than 25,000 now. The claim is unsubstantiated.
There is no evidence to support your claim that all the polar bear populations are increasing.
There is actually 27,000 in Canada alone. (according to the Canadian government, up from 25000 in the year 2000.
Confirmed by people I know who actually work there.
In the 60’s there were 13000 thousand but likely most were not counted.
Currently Polar Bears are not on the endangered species list.
They are still able to be hunted in Canada. (I can assure you Canada would ban hunting of them otherwise.)
The Canadian Government has an active department that counts, watches, tags, and weighs polar bears. Very few are believed to have avoided this procedure. So there are at least 27000.
All colonies in Canada are up in health and numbers. Inuit do not hunt them as actively as they used too, as well as American big game hunters. Therefore, this may explain the increase.
Communities near polar bear colonies don’t like Polar Bears, they love them!
If they were in danger the uproar would be huge. The demonstrations would be huge. The media would be all over it.
Locals would catch seals and feed the bears themselves if required.
I know many people who live and visit these communities. They do not understand why these claims are being fabricated by the press.
Even those who believe in AGW.
Media often photographs them at this time of year (early DEC) when Polar bears are at their thinnest, before they go out on to the pack ice and feed.
Even then their weight though on the low side are well within the norm.
The propaganda is simply not true.
Numbers in Russia cannot be trusted ether way but there is no reason to suspect any different out come as the conditions there are the same or colder than Canada.
Churchill Manitoba has a “Polar bear Jailâ€. Polar Bears that walk into the town are captured and taken to jail. There they are weighed and tagged and then taken back to the wild and released..
I know someone who worked there. Not a single polar bear was found to be underweight.
Please watch the video i posted. It tries to be unbiased, You decide whose telling the truth.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Environment/ID/2505129180/
According to Mitchell Taylor, who studies the polar bear in Canada,
“Polar bears were well developed as a separate species by the Eemian interglacial approximately 125,000 years ago. This period was characterized by temperature fluctuations caused by entirely natural events on the same order as those predicted by contemporary climate change models. Polar bears obviously adapted to the changing environment, as evidenced by their presence today. That simple fact is well known and part of the information contained in the reference material cited throughout the petition, yet it is never mentioned. This fact alone is sufficient grounds to reject the petition. Clearly polar bears can adapt to climate change. They have persisted for thousands of years in a period characterized by fluctuating climate. No rational person could review this information and conclude that climate change pre-destined polar bears to extinction.”[11]
There is actually 27,000 in Canada alone. (according to the Canadian government, up from 25000 in the year 2000.
Confirmed by people I know who actually work there.
I am sorry I meant to say 17,000 up from 15,000 in Canada alone. It was late when I wrote this.
Old data claims that there is 22,000 to 27,000 world wide.
New data (2014 to 2015) claims 27,000 plus worldwide.
Phil,
There is no question that some of the local populations of polar bears are increasing.
That is not the argument C-“FACT” made. They claimed the overall polar bear population increased over 5 fold in the past 50 years. That is extremely unlikely to be true.
What is true is that polar bear habitat is being rapidly lost. Yes, bears are adaptable species and may be able to withstand this, but C-“FACT” chose to mislead by using unsubstantiated data.