The Death of a Hoax

[palerider]

Peer reviewed data contradicting the claims of climate change hoaxers just keeps rolling in. Now that real scientists (physicists, chemists, etc.) are stepping up to the plate to defend science as a whole from the damage being done by a sub set of overfunded, undereducated "specialists", their claims of the past 30 years are sluffing off like an old snakeskin.

One must wonder how long before those who are presently funding, and promoting the hoax will find it to embarassing to be connected and quietly walk away.

Here are some of the more recent body blows to the hoax:

http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1212/1/documents/2012EGU_homogenization_1.pdf

This paper presented at the European Geosciences Union finds that the warming claimed by the IPCC, et. al. over the past century is, in reality, only about half of the stated amount. Climate science has been claiming 0.7 to 0.8 degrees C but due to terribly handled data across the board, the actual warming is closer to 0.4 degrees C.

By the way, do any of you warmers have any idea what the margin of error is, and has always been for the warming claimed by climate science?

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...vapor-observations-by-vonder-haar-et-al-2012/

Here is a peer reviewed paper that finds that climate "science" has grossly overestimated the postitive feedback from water vapor. Considering that water vapor is considered to be a "greenouse gas" that is orders of magnitude more powerful than CO2, how much do you suppose the effect of CO2 has been overstated. My estimate is 100% as CO2 has no mechanism by which to cause any warming at all.

Then there is the IPCC admitting that its past papers were little more than political hyperbolae.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html

And lets not forget the work of Nikolov and Zeller which has accurately predicted the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere even though it completely disregards the composition of the atmosphere. Their work is actually supported by the laws of physics and thier results are, get this, predicted by those same laws as oppsed to the claimes of climate science which run afoul of the laws of physics at every turn.

One could go on for pages and pages citing published, peer reviewed papers that contradict the cliams of climate pseudoscience but would it really matter? Is it possible for fact to intrude on faith?

The real question is: How long before you believers give up this half assed religion of AGW for something with a little more meat on its bones?

 

[Gipper]

How long before they leave the AGW faith? That is a good question.

I suspect many will NEVER give up the AGW faith. Because the faith is not really about AGW, but one world Marxism. We know many on the left including many in our government (even in the White House) have a goal to institute Marxism. These people are using silly warmers and the hoax that is AGW, to push their tyrannical objectives.

It is sad that any regular citizen could believe the hoax. It just proves how easy the elites can dupe millions.

 

[dogtowner]

question becomes how many more billions will be squandered while its all grinding to a halt ?

 

[palerider]

question becomes how many more billions will be squandered while its all grinding to a halt ?

As many as the crooks can milk out of the system.

 

[dogtowner]

As many as the crooks can milk out of the system.

of course but now more than ever before, we can ill afford it.

 

[palerider]

Interesting that the members of the church of AGW have not chimed in. Could it be that the church is dead here?

 

[Gipper]

Interesting that the members of the church of AGW have not chimed in. Could it be that the church is dead here?

Not dead. I suspect they are afraid to debate you.

I had hope our friendly maryjane using moderator would chime in with his usual defense of AGW, but maybe he learned from your schooling him in an older thread.

 

[palerider]

maybe he learned from your schooling him in an older thread.

Doubt it. They never learn. Facts have no meaning to a person of faith and AGW is about faith, not fact.

 

[Gipper]

Doubt it. They never learn. Facts have no meaning to a person of faith and AGW is about faith, not fact.

There is one way to find out.

THC1 are you there? Tell us have you learned the error of your ways on AGW or not?

 

[palerider]

Thanks,

There is one way to find out.

THC1 are you there? Tell us have you learned the error of your ways on AGW or not?

Thanks a lot. I just blew coffee, and a little chunk of danish out of my nose. Dang that smarts.

 

[Cruella]

I think it's all about money (like Al Gore and his "carbon credits"), and the enviro-wacko's. All this green energy garbage, like solar and wind costs a fortune, compared to coal, gas, & oil.

 

[Gipper]

I think it's all about money (like Al Gore and his "carbon credits"), and the enviro-wacko's. All this green energy garbage, like solar and wind costs a fortune, compared to coal, gas, & oil.

Yes, but it is more than money. Power is also a major driver.

 

[PLC1]

Ah, I see Palerider has ridden back and is once again promulgating his idea that he has managed to uncover a great conspiracy of every scientific organization on Earth to fool us into thinking that actual scientific research is "religion" and that his credentials are better than theirs.

So, is CO2 a greenhouse gas, or not? Last time you rode in, you said it wasn't, then labeled my proof that it was as "scripture."

Does the term "misnomer" mean anything to you?

 

[palerider]

Ah, I see Palerider has ridden back and is once again promulgating his idea that he has managed to uncover a great conspiracy of every scientific organization on Earth to fool us into thinking that actual scientific research is "religion" and that his credentials are better than theirs.

So, is CO2 a greenhouse gas, or not? Last time you rode in, you said it wasn't, then labeled my proof that it was as "scripture."

Does the term "misnomer" mean anything to you?

 

[palerider]

Ah, I see Palerider has ridden back and is once again promulgating his idea that he has managed to uncover a great conspiracy of every scientific organization on Earth to fool us into thinking that actual scientific research is "religion" and that his credentials are better than theirs. [/qutoe]

Tell me PLC, do you beleve there was a conspiracy between and among tobacco companies to quell the rising tide of information that clearly indicated that the use of tobacco was bad for you? If you didn't beleive that there was, I would have to think you less than intelligent. The next obvious question would be "why would they engage in such a conspiracy? The obvious answer, money; and lots of it.

Well the great pile of money climate science stands to lose should the crisis fizzle out makes the money the tobacco companies stood to lose look like so much loose change. The money the tobacco companies stood to lose over the coming decades would pale in comparison to the money the climate industry stands to lose per year.

And I have made no claims regarding my credentials although I am more highly educated than the average cliamte scientist. Have you ever looked at the requirements for a degree in that field? Pathetic. One semester of calculus, one semester of general physics, only basic chemistry. The fact is that the average climate scientist isn't qualified to determine whether or not the basic science behind the claim of anthropogenic climate change is sound or not while I am. The physics upon which the claims of climate science are flawed and I have done the math for you.

So, is CO2 a greenhouse gas, or not? Last time you rode in, you said it wasn't, then labeled my proof that it was as "scripture."

First, you had no proof. You didn't provide anything like proof. You did provide the equivalent of scripture.

As to you question; since there is no such thing as a greenouse effect, no, CO2 is not a greenouse gas. The greenhouse hypothesis is based on terribly flawed physics which you admittedly don't understand and therefore, by defnition take on faith. I am sure that you are completely unaware of the recent work of Nikolov and Zeller, two actual scientists (Phd in physics) but they have shown that there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but has nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere beyond the specific gravity of the gasses that comprise it. They have accurately predicted the temeprature of every planet within the solar system using little more than the respective distance from the sun and the ideal gas laws. Our temeprature is a product of energy from the sun and gravity. They have shown that changing the volumes of trace gasses within the atmosphere has no effect at all. The observable, repeatable, experimental work of Graeff has confired their hypothesis.

Does the term "misnomer" mean anything to you?

Of course. A misnomer is a misapplied or inappropriate name or designation. Anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic climate change are two prime examples. The globe does warm and cool and the climate does change but the addition of the term anthropogenic, suggesting that the activites of man are somehow responsible, by definition, makes the term a misnomer.

Do feel free to prove me wrong by providing a bit of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. You might do that by describing something that is happening within the current climate that is actually unprecedented or beyond the boundries of natural variability or some actual experimental evidence (not computer modelling) that proves that a 100, or 200, or 3oo, or even 500 ppm increase in an inert, trace atmospheric gas can cause warming in an open atmosphere.