All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Monday, 23 September 2013

Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

 Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed



By Alan Caruba on his Warning Signs blog


I will never understand the kind of thinking behind a lie so big that it became an international fraud and swindle. I cannot understand why an international organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) operating under the umbrella of the United Nations, was permitted to issue reports of an imminent threat to the Earth, to mankind, that a freshman student of meteorology would know were false.

At long last the Big Lie of Global Warming has been totally exposed and we can thank The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank that has organized and hosted eight international Conferences on Climate Change since 2008 to expose the lies behind global warming—now called “climate change”—as it became clear that seventeen years of continuous cooling has put a Big Chill on this Big Lie.

I suspect that the Heartland team, led by Joe Bast and including some remarkable, dedicated people, will only get a line or two in some future historian’s account of the deception that began in 1988 before a congressional committee. Thereafter the global warming hoax was given momentum by former Vice President Al Gore who, along with the IPCC, would receive a Nobel Peace Prize!

It helps to have a sense of humor when you are doing battle with hucksters who have the entire world’s media to defend them. The climate “skeptics”—some of the world’s most renowned meteorologists—dubbed their effort the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and, working with the Heartland Institute, have just released a new edition of “Climate Change Reconsidered II.”

It arrives just as the IPCC will release its 5th Assessment Report. The IPCC’s lies will get lots of news coverage. Heartland's NIPCC report was fortunate to have notice taken by Fox News, but beyond that most of the intransigent U.S. news media ignored it.

As often as not one has to look to foreign newspapers to get the truth. In Great Britain’s The Mail, the headline on September 14 was “Global warming just HALF what we said: World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong.” A leaked copy of the IPCC report revealed “scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.”

Well, of course, they were wrong. The so-called “science” on which they were based was idiotic. It focused primarily on carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called “greenhouse gases”, claiming they were trapping heat while being produced by all manner of human activity related to generating energy with coal, oil, and natural gas.

Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Ph,D, co-author of “Slaying the Sky Dragon—Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, summed it up neatly, pointing out that water vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere is a primary factor affecting climate long term and weather short term.

“The determinant of weather is mainly water in all its forms,” said Dr. Herzberg, “as vapor in the atmosphere, in its heat transport by evaporation and condensation, as the enormous circulating mass of liquid ocean whose heat capacity and mass/energy transport dominate the motions of our atmosphere and the precipitation from it, and finally as cloud, snow, and ice cover which influence the radiative balance between the Sun, the Earth, and free Space.” 

As you try to wrap your mind around that explanation, just think about the way the Earth goes through regular seasons as well as predictable cycles of warming and cooling. It has done this now for some 4.5 billion years.

To read "Climate Change Reconsidered II", visit its website. Among its findings, the report notes that “no close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human related CO2 emissions.” Blaming the climate or even the weather on humans is insane. You might as well blame the floods in Colorado on humans instead of the downpours of rain, comparable to 1894 and 1969.

Indeed, the U.S. gives ample evidence of greatly reduced events associated with the weather. There have been fewer tornadoes over recent decades.  It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the U.S. Droughts have been shorter and less extreme than the 1930s and 1950s. And sea levels are predicted to increase barely four to eight inches per century and that may be on the high side. There will be dramatic weather events, but there have always been dramatic weather events!

The Heartland’s new report is welcome, but both they and I know that the same deceitful charlatans are still at work in the United Nations, in the United States, and around the world to keep this greatest of hoaxes alive.

The harm the global warming hoax has done and continues to do is best seen in the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency to wipe out the coal industry based entirely on the lie that CO2 is a “pollutant.” When the House Energy & Commerce Committee held a hearing on the Obama administration’s climate policies thirteen agencies were invited to testify, but the administration provided only EPA administrator Gina McCarty and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. The latter read a prepared statement that was one long lie about global warming. Presumably he was under oath!

Ms. McCarty, the latest in a long line of environmental fanatics to run the agency, was forced under questioning to admit that current and proposed greenhouse gas regulations are not there to protect the public but to influence “the international community” to reduce their CO2 and other alleged emissions. Not only do the regulations have no basis in science, but they exist to keep the environmental war on energy use going and to pressure developing nations such as China and India. Within the past month, the citizens of Australia rose up and threw out the politicians who imposed a “carbon” tax on them. The new prime minister has shut down the “climate ministry” that existed to enforce it.

And while most of the world wasn’t watching, the United Nations was seeking to impose, once again, an international agreement similar to the failed and defunct Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 and other greenhouse emissions, based on the BIG LIE! The 44th Pacific Islands Forum, held in the Marshall Islands, was intent on “an ambitious future climate regime to be finalized in 2015.”

That is what must be understood. These people will not give up until they have no other option. They will continue to exploit the ignorance of people regarding the actual science, penalizing them by driving up the cost of energy use, by closing down energy industries, prospective projects, and the jobs they provide,

They sustain the malignant ethanol scam that is ruining engines as this is being written. They are behind the useless solar panel and wind turbine industries that produce so little actual electricity they are a negative drag on the national grid. You, however, are picking up the tab for their mandated use. They practice a form of child abuse to tell children the Earth is doomed if their mother uses a plastic bag to bring groceries home from the supermarket.

The world’s BIGGEST LIE has been exposed and it will have to be exposed again and again until a stake is driven into the evil heart of the “global warming” hoax.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

9 comments:

  1. So I'm writing this hoping you'll respond because I genuinely am curious to know the answer.

    What do you believe about the climate and climate change? What of the scientific method do you not believe and do you have a science background? Do you know about the physics of greenhouse gasses and how they work?

    I'm also curious to know how one could adopt such an opinion when 97% of the scientific community, who follow the scientific method and use empirical data to test their hypotheses, support the notion of CO2 emissions being a pollutant. Following on from that, if CO2 isn't a pollutant does that mean that nothing is? Should we throw toxic substances out into the environment because we decide that there's no proof that it will affect anything?? Why is CO2 exempt from being defined as a pollutant?

    I really hope that you respond to this and don't just ignore it because it doesn't agree with your article. You know, the best way to strengthen your arguments and beliefs is to defend them... :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Beefus,

      If you care to download a little thing I've been assembling for the past 4 or 5 years you should find all the answers you seek to the questions you have asked - and perhaps just a little bit more that might not only reassure you that all is not 'doom and gloom', but that there is a lot of good news. And, I'm looking for feed-bsck. Tell me if you think I've missed anything, if there is anything that is incorrect - and you can prove it is so with empirical data, and if you discover something new, probably because it's new technology.

      Here's the link: http://galileomovement.com.au/media/ReconsideringClimateChange.ppsx. It's a huge interactive PowerPoint slide show.

      Hours of innocent fun checking out on everything. About 1,000 Internet hyperlinks to explore, and - I'll wager - a few new things. Try: magnetic fields have a different shape to all the textbook illustrations (and even NASA's illustration of the Earth's Magnetosphere); Fish migration in the North Pacific and Solar cycles; a new organic solution to pollution that fixes REAL pollution, such as oil spills, heavy metals, radionuclides, PCBs (although it absorbs the dreaded non-pollution CO2 as well); thorium nuclear energy; the question as to whether the 'greenhouse' theory is just so much humbug; and lots, lots more.

      Good luck with that then!

      And I almost forgot: you can check out the mythical '97%' consensus as well.

      P.S. Worried about the ice melting in the Arctic (and the Antarctic)? Go and have a look! (You can do that quickly and easily via the slide show. Worried bout the island nation disappearing beneath the waves? Same thing - go an have a look.

      Never mind about what 'the experts' might say. Check it out for yourself!

      Delete
    2. Now, Beefus, I am not sure if you are asking me, Geoff Brown who posted the item or Alan Caruba who wrote it.

      As well as Michael's very good answer above,I will address a few points.

      What do you believe about the climate and climate change?

      Strange two part question. What do I believe about climate....? Well, I believe that there is climate.

      What do I believe about climate change? I believe that climate changes and has done so since the beginning of time.

      Do you know about the physics of greenhouse gasses and how they work? Yes, Do you know that Water Vapour (H2O) is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect.

      I'm also curious to know how one could adopt such an opinion when 97% of the scientific community, who follow the scientific method and use empirical data to test their hypotheses, support the notion of CO2 emissions being a pollutant.

      The old flawed 97% argument which has been blown away so many times including Anthony Cox's The Consensus Myth: 97% of Nothing

      if CO2 isn't a pollutant does that mean that nothing is? Should we throw toxic substances out into the environment because we decide that there's no proof that it will affect anything? No worth answering this silly suggestion.

      Delete
  2. While I have been looking at the raw data for years and agree entirely about what I call Y2K version2 panic; I think we harm our case to use the vocabulary of those who invented the phrase 'climate skeptic' to villify anyone who disagreed with what they genuinely believed was a problem - as people did over Y2K and RSI, and still do over Globalisation.
    Calling names never did an argument any good at all, nor did references to their private life.
    Let's stick to the facts, CO2 is going up and world temperatures are not - How does CO2 achieve 'climate change' if it does not seem to make a difference to the world's temperatures?
    It is all Witches of Salem and Inquisition stuff, and we should stear clear of any villification and mental water boarding, no matter how much we may feel it is deserved.
    It is well known that additional facts rarely persuade true believers, so lobby your MPs with data that cannot be refuted - they only believe in re-election
    The Gobal warming fraternity knew that there was no 'warming' when they changed their clarion call to Climate Change; we must do the same and find something less threatening and more benign sounding.
    Climate change is an oxymoron, climates change by definition.
    Howard Dewhirst

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I have been looking at the raw data for years and agree entirely about what I call Y2K version2 panic; I think we harm our case to use the vocabulary of those who invented the phrase 'climate skeptic' to villify anyone who disagreed with what they genuinely believed was a problem - as people did over Y2K and RSI, and still do over Globalisation.
    Calling names never did an argument any good at all, nor did references to their private life.
    Let's stick to the facts, CO2 is going up and world temperatures are not - How does CO2 achieve 'climate change' if it does not seem to make a difference to the world's temperatures?
    It is all Witches of Salem and Inquisition stuff, and we should stear clear of any villification and mental water boarding, no matter how much we may feel it is deserved.
    It is well known that additional facts rarely persuade true believers, so lobby your MPs with data that cannot be refuted - they only believe in re-election
    The Gobal warming fraternity knew that there was no 'warming' when they changed their clarion call to Climate Change; we must do the same and find something less threatening and more benign sounding.
    Climate change is an oxymoron, climates change by definition.
    Howard Dewhirst

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beefus,

    You need to do some serious study.

    Why do you assume that the people hired and paid by governments to find a link between human activity and global warming used the scientific method to do so?

    The physics of green house gasses is not the controversy. If they behaved as the IPCC claimed the earth would have heated 0.6 degrees C warmer than it has... that is according to their predictions. Obviously they are wrong.

    People claiming that there is a 97% consensus is not the same thing as there being a 97% consensus. Did you read the study that claimed this? What questions did they ask the participants in the study? What answers did they get? Most people who totally disagree with the calamitous conclusions of the IPCC agree with most of the questions that are asked in these "97%" studies. These studies NEVER ask if there is going to be a future catastrophe from global warming (I'll bet you thought they did).

    CO2 is not a pollutant. It is part of the carbon cycle that all plants desperately need. This is simply not true for Mercury, Lead, PCB, and other products that are actually pollutants. You emit CO2 when you exhale. Other things that you emit you may consider a pollutant too but plants do not... It's called fertilizer. It is a proven fact that the plants on the earth grow better because of the CO2 that mankind has emitted. Plants are placed in greenhouses and exposed to controlled levels of CO2 so the added benefits of CO2 are not just conjecture like weather and climate prediction are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe "Global Warming" is more about water (including water vapor in the atmosphere and heat) than about measuring temperatures around the globe? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130724102734.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. The real joke on us Australians is the fact that existing coal-fired power stations are such a huge capital investment that they are/were owned by govrrnments.

    And politicians think that making the price of power so expensive will someday piss off a physics geek who will, in their garage of course, lol, develop nuclear fission in a vegemite jar which will power the world for the next 10 million years. What a bloody joke.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why not just bite the bullet and, as France has done, go nuclear powered. Gg.

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!