It’s not surprising that so many people believe the idea that global warming is being cause almost entirely by human activity, given the fact that most scientists seem to believe the same thing. But scientists should probably ask themselves why there is still such a large cohort of “deniers” as they like to call them, who are adamant that anthropogenic climate change is a scam.
The reason why is that the scientific community has been caught many times tampering with climate data and making outlandish claims. The celebrities and politicians who promote this cause have also been caught on many occasions, living in palatial mansions, flying across the world in private jets, and generally just living lives of excess that produce so much more carbon that the average person. Given these facts, how could anyone take the global warming arguments seriously?
What also doesn’t help their cause, is when reputable scientists question climate change dogma. Recently, two Australian scientists published a paper that explains why the shifts in global temperature that we see today, are likely entirely natural.
Jennifer Marohasy, a scientist with a rather long list of impressive credentials, which includes the founding of The Climate Modeling Laboratory, opens her startling climate report with a dose of reality. “Our new technical paper … will likely be ignored,” she writes at The Spectator Australia.
She goes on to explain why, “Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.”
At the crux of their argument, is the fact that global temperatures were actually warmer during the middle ages, which used to be considered common knowledge for years, and is often denied by many climate change proponents today. These researchers confirmed that the world was indeed warmer before the industrial revolution. And that of course suggests that human activity doesn’t have nearly as much of an impact on the climate as most environmentalists claim.
Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. …
There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period.
Bottom line, don’t ever let anyone tell you that the climate change debate is over, and that the science on the matter is settled. Don’t let them fool you into thinking that there’s a strict consensus among scientists regarding global warming (and even if there was a 100% consensus, just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t mean it’s true). The people promoting the theory of man-made global warming have been caught lying too many times for us to blindly follow them.
Related:
Australia’s Bureau Of Meteorology Caught Tampering With Climate Change Data
Global Warming Guru Says World Was Warmer in Medieval Times Than Now
It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point
The head of the Canadian province of Ontario, Doug Ford, has warned that it will retaliate against...
Iowa's governor Kim Reynolds has extended that bird flu "disaster declaration" after the virus was...
President-elect, Donald Trump has announced that he will enforce tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and...
This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The Economic Collapse Blog. What in...
This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge. While it had been reported in...
Commenting Policy:
Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.
This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02vvYDxXQ3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsD8yCcCZ5Y
I’ve been studying the Fairbairn Method of hand to hand combat from WW2.
This would have been taught to grandpa.
It’s pretty solid actually. Better than 99% of martial arts systems.
I never did believe in colored belts and dancing katas.
You should learn in your street clothes and shoes and fight full force with pads or moderate force with only a cup mouthpiece and knuckle wraps. You should learn about ground fighting clubs knives and handguns.
Judo, Jujitsu, Muay Thai, Krav Maga, Wrestling, BJJ, Boxing all are useful.
For preppers I would say Krav Maga.
Will Likely Be Ignored. You know it will!!!
Its August in central Illinois. we should be at 90 to 100 degrees. Hells Bells we are in the upper 70’s. Global Cooling I say!!!
Sgt.
Sarge,,, wait till october and its -12,,,, yall be wantn some warming then
“N”
If it is I’m coming to visit you!!!!
Sgt.
The climate IS changing. Global Warming is not. Know the difference. 🙂
Who cares, anyway? Not me! Why? Because I am an environmentally responsible citizen regardless. I am also realistic about our needs for energy, housing, and manufacturing. We need to find sound solutions moving forward. Monsanto needs to be jailed. This family is another crime family. They made their fortune as slave traders. Set the blacks on them for reparations, if you like. Just stop these creeps from making round-up GMO poison that is killing us, the bees, and everything else. Break up Big Pharma. Stop them from advertising on TV and magazines. End the CIAs drug business. Put a condom on and stop “the pill”. Bring back virginity, monogamy, and marriage. Our social problems and environmental problems are intertwined. Both need some renewal and commitment to excellence, ethics, survival, and common sense.
_
Tell your buddy Bravefart to stop blowing hot air out of his big, bloated, biscuit-eating booty hole. That’s half of the worlds global warming right there.
Search for “Bob Carter is co2 the cause” on YouTube. There are four videos in the series. He completely destroys the myth of man-made global warming/temperature change.
Agree with all that B from CA, I would guess the poisoning of the environment is a much bigger and more immediate threat to mankind than global warming.
I think the poisoning of the minds of today’s youth is pretty terrible also. The trash that passes for entertainment or music (okay, mostly the lyrics) is pathetic. Even the art world has run amok. (Objects made with vile materials like dung or urine is now worthy of display in a museum? Heh, my cat is an artist then.)
I noticed an article (cannot recall where for sure) that the Hallmark channel is really rising in ratings for all age ranges. People are looking for clean, family friendly values on TV programming.
So, yes, B from CA and aljamo, it’s time to bring ethics and virtue back. It might even catch on.
Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist and Greenpeace activist, wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in Greenland when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern technologies are utilized – and even then, crop selection is very minimal. Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 pYet, in the 1100s, Greenland cooled dramatically, briefly seople and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches. Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records. Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.” The results of this? Especially in northern Europe, “the period between 1150 and 1300 was truly a flowering period, for population reached unprecedented levels that were never to be seen again until the late 18thcentury in many countries; the English population experienced a staggering threefold increase in its population during the last century since the Domesday Survey in 1086”.
This climate optimum (also called a climate anomaly) coincided with a period of increased solar activity (see below). Farming of various crops extended hundreds of kilometers farther north than it is possible today.
tabilized, and then dropped even further in the 1200s to the early 1400s. Sirocko (2010) places the earlier event at the beginning of the 1310’s, while a more commonly accepted time frame for the first cold phase is the coinciding solar minimum called Wolf minimum from 1280-1350. There were repeated cold snaps and advancing glaciers and sea ice from that time onward, but it was not until the early 1600’s that the most devastating effects of the Little Ice Age began to set in, which is the more commonly used date for its beginning. As Dale Mackenzie Brown writes “An ice core drilled from the island’s (Greenland’s) massive icecap between 1992 and 1993 shows a decided cooling off in the Western Settlement during the mid-fourteenth century.” But the recent recovery in temperatures is only putting us back to the average temps from an earlier age!
Indeed, when I was visiting Iceland at Skaftafell Nat’l Park two years ago, Icelandic historians know from extant deeds – and have put in the displays at the park – that somewhere around FORTY old Viking era farms are currently buried under the Vatnajokull glacier system (the largest in the world outside of Greenland and Antarctica). In other words, it was simply much warmer in the Icelandic settlement era than it is today. We are routinely informed of the melting of Greenland glaciers today at lower altitudes, but demonstrably there are at bare minimum low altitude glaciers in roughly the same geographic area that had seen more melting and more pronounced glacial recession one thousand years ago than we see today. Al Gore may want to visit Skaftafell National Park in Iceland on one of his many jet-setting, carbon burning trips to check the facts himself.
More evidence: There are records of grape growing occurring in places in northern Europe back during this optimum where they can’t grow today. Gregory McNamee, in the Weather Guide Calendar (Accord Publishing, 2002) noted that wine connoisseurs might have gone to England for fine vintages (can’t grow fine vintage grapes there today!), that heat loving trees like beeches carpeted Europe far into Scandinavia, and Viking ships crossed iceberg free oceans to ice free harbors in Iceland…”. Art Horn writes that “In the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? “
On the other side of the world, research by Panin and Nefedov in 2010, where they analyzed rivers and lakes in the Upper Volga and Upper Zapadnaya Dvina areas in Russia, also found evidence of a Medieval climatic optimum in that part of the world Even worse for the warmers, recent research has found evidence for the Medieval Climatic Optimum in the central Peruvian Andes, southern South America, China, see, http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/jan/18jan2012a4.html, where the author XJ Zhou notes “temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are comparable to those in the current warm period over China,” and Antarctica, Li, Y., Cole-Dai, J. and Zhou, L. 2009. Glaciochemical evidence in an East Antarctica ice core of a recent (AD 1450-1850) neoglacial episode. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD011091 (summarized at http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/sep/20sep2011a5.html).
Amazingly, there is even clear evidence of the LIA and MWP in Antarctica- see http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/paper-antarctica-did-experience-both.html#more
Importantly, see the pix of a white spruce stump (picea glauca) found on Canada’s ****Arctic Ocean**** on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra, ***some 100km north of the current treeline.**** Photo by Professor Ritchie (University of Toronto). Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP), and was featured in Hubert Lamb’s classic work Climate, Present, Past and Future. See http://drtimball.com/2012/sensationalist-and-distorted-climate-stories-increase-as-climate-science-failures-exposed/ for this picture, as well as other AGW info.
Similarly, two recent papers, reported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, one in Earth-Science Reviews and the other is in Chinese Science Bulletin, reported studies of “key chemical contents in micro-drilled giant clams shells and coral samples to demonstrate that in the South China Sea the warm period of the Middle Ages was warmer than the present. The scientists examined surveys of the ratio of strontium to calcium content and heavy oxygen isotopes, both are sensitive recorders of sea surface temperatures past and present. The aragonite bicarbonate of the Tridacna gigas clam-shell is so fine-grained that daily growth-lines are exposed by micro-drilling with an exceptionally fine drill-bit, allowing an exceptionally detailed time-series of sea-temperature changes to be compiled – a feat of detection worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself. By using overlaps between successive generations of giant clams and corals, the three scientists – Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Yuhong Wang of Fudan University, Shanghai – reconstructed a record of sea-surface temperature changes going back 2500 years. The Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods both showed up prominently in the western Pacific and East Asia. Sea surface temperatures varied considerably over the 2500-year period.” Dr. Soon concludes :” “The UN’s climate panel should never have trusted the claim that the medieval warm period was mainly a European phenomenon. It was clearly warm in South China Sea, too.”
Another study, by earth sciences professor Zunli Lu (formerly of Oxford, now at Syracuse Univ.), studied samples of crystal called ikaite, which forms in cold water, and will melt at room temperature. Samples were taken by Lu and colleagues, examined for variation caused by temperature fluctuations during formation, and dated. The result? Lu writes: “This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.” What does this mean? It means that the MWP was not simply a localized event in northern Europe, or even the northern hemisphere. And if it was as warm 1,000 years ago as now all over the world, Al Gore is simply wrong. Study summary by the UK Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/warm_period_little_ice_age_global/
The whole climate debacle is all about money pure and simple. If a scientist is doing research on global warming he follows the money, if not…no money. Drink the kool-aid.
“Global warming” is nothing more than the same doom-and-gloom promoted in the ’70’s and ’80s by people like Paul Ehrlich and his “Population Bomb” – whose predictions turned out to be utterly false.
Remember, back then it was allegedly common knowledge that by 2000 500 million people a year would be starving to death. Never happened.
Also predicted: Total depletion of most of the natural resources civilization depends on. Didn’t happen. Prices went up, new sources for those resources found, nothing changed. Even OIL didn’t run out (although it might well eventually.)
Bottom line: Even if global warming is correct science, society will use technology to mitigate the effects. Further, eventually technology will radically alter the human species so that such environmental issues will no longer be actual threats.
Look up nanotechnology and “The Singularity.” Humans won’t even be around past the next 100 years or so – and it won’t be because of global warming.
Starving to death happens, in large numbers, today.
Starving to death happens in many ways.
Starving to death happens for political reasons.
Starving to death happens for climate reasons.
Starving to death happens because food is weaponized and used as a weapon.
*1 IN 8 PEOPLE WORLDWIDE DO NOT GET ENOUGH FOOD.
*THE NUMBER OF HUNGRY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD EXCEEDS THE POPULATION OF THE U.S., CANADA, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION COMBINED.
*34 MILLION CHILDREN SUFFER FROM SEVERE ACUTE MALNUTRITION, A DEADLY CONDITION IF NOT TREATED.
*AROUND 1 MILLION CHILDREN EACH YEAR DIE FROM HUNGER-RELATED CAUSES. THIS MEANS MALNUTRITION CAUSES 15% OF CHILD DEATHS.
*A LEADING CAUSE FOR MALNUTRITION IN CHILDREN UNDER 5 YEARS OLD IS DIARRHEAL DISEASE CAUSED BY UNSAFE WATER AND SANITATION.
*1 IN 6 CHILDREN IN DEVELOPING NATIONS IS UNDERWEIGHT.
*HUNGER KILLS MORE PEOPLE EACH YEAR THAN AIDS, MALARIA AND TUBERCULOSIS COMBINED.
*MORE THAN 60% OF THE WORLD’S HUNGRY ARE WOMEN AND GIRLS.
*THE FIRST 1,000 DAYS OF A CHILD’S LIFE, FROM PREGNANCY THROUGH AGE TWO, IS A CRITICAL WINDOW FOR GOOD NUTRITION.
*1 IN 4 CHILDREN IN DEVELOPING NATIONS IS STUNTED.
Stunning statistics to contemplate.
ht tp://www.actionagainsthunger.org/hunger-facts?gclid=Cj0KCQjw8vnMBRDgARIsACm_BhL7zOUFZ5qa7Z234UnjOoaafmd0xfYVLS6j_bjskzxn_mv-3TKoJ2UaAj25EALw_wcB
For these libs to keep going on and on sickens me.It’s not about the environment it’s their religion. Fake outrage. We have extreme drought and fire here in central Montana. We were just declared extreme drought today by the state government. Hay and wheat yields only 15 bushels per acre. Terrible. And if they really care about the environment why no outrage over Fukushima? Cause it happened when that cuck Barry was in office? That’s the real disaster not glaciers that naturally change in time!
RSH: Any chance agricultural advances, glyphosate and GM crops helped stave off extensive starvation?
Whilst my preps are stocked with heirlooms I also have plenty of hybrid/gmos and GALLONS of round up, insecticides and non organic Fertilizers in the shed – life could get real hard, real quick. I’ll take any edge I can get!
You need to STOP this BS distortion and outright lying about the nature of climate change. You need to stop quote mining and data mining to fit your incorrect narrative.
The Climate of the Earth has ranged from entirely molten to entirely frozen. It’s been everywhere in between countless time as well. This IS NOT the issue and you are misrepresenting the actual issue.
When the Earth enters the next NATURAL warming period ALL the greenhouse gas created by human civilization will be ADDED to that. ALL the evidence points to us being what would normally be a natural cooling period which is entirely mitigated by the NEW human element.
The ISSUE is the FACT that we are now a new factor added to and subtracted from any an all natural cyclical factors
You purposefully distort this FACT and all FACTS by selectively contrasting cherry picked time periods with the present which is dishonest and fraudulent
“The people promoting the theory of man-made global warming have been caught lying too many times for us to blindly follow them”.
————————————–
Yeah, all the world’s top climate scientists in every country in the world are all pretending global warming is happening so they can increase their payroll, somehow..
The debate IS OVER among the world’s REAL, reputable scientists. People who say otherwise, like the KOCKS brothers, all have alternative motives- PROFIT– from the fossil fuel industry!!!!
Almost 16 years after Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes first documented an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, a research team confirmed that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening.
The study, published Tuesday, brought together 16 scientists, including seven authors of consensus studies that documented similar conclusions over the years despite varying research approaches. While reaching this so-called “consensus on consensus,” authors concluded that scientific agreement on human-caused climate change is “robust” with a range of 90 to 100 percent, depending on the question and methodology.
the above is from thinkprogress.com
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM NASA WEBSITE–
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
U.S. agencies
FROM NASA WEBSITE– IT LISTS 200 WORLDWIDE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS THAT HOLD THE POSITION THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAD BEEN CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTION.
(Check it out!)
FROM weather.com:
Environment
87 Percent of Americans Unaware There’s Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
By Pam Wright·
July 11 2017 10:00 AM EDT·
weather.com
FROM Wikipedia!!!
———————–
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]
This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]
From Wikileaks:
———————–
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]
Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
FROM Salon:
—————–
Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it.
What can we conclude?
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.
Tuesday, Mar 25, 2014 10:23 PM EDT
10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame
Virtually all of the scientific papers published in 2013 accept climate change [UPDATED]
Lindsay Abrams Follow
But, hey! What do all the EXPERTS know, when you red neck right, wingers say its not happening… right??!
“Experts” paid for by the global warming scam industry, which rakes in billions (with a B) of dollars annually.
Faked, unreproducible ‘research’, using data known to be fraudulent.
Twenty years of no warming, with no explanation from the Warmistas.
A complete failure of every single climate model and prediction to account for accurately measured reality.
Claiming that up is down and left is right doesn’t make it so. Mass opinion that the Earth is flat doesn’t make it so. Debunked statistics, cherry picked studies, and outright fraud (remember “hide the decline”?) aren’t science. They’re politics. Witch hunting heretics (why are we called “deniers”?) isn’t science, it’s politics.
And all politics is war by other means. Why are all global cooling, I mean warming, I mean climate change solutions to tax the productive and give to the unproductive, with the usual leeches taking their percentages off the exchange?
And what is the threat? How many people live near the equator, compared to near the poles? How horrible would it be to have longer growing seasons, and the ability for humans to live and grow food further north and south than they currently do?