Crime Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say

[chardog]

When the temps start dropping, the Left will be crying that we need cars with larger internal combustion engine vehicles.

Been there done that


Just waiting for it to go full circle

 

[chardog]

Environmental degradation would have been an easier sell than climate change.

Probably not

The World Is Getting Greener Thanks to Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels

We're used to hearing about how rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere are leading to things like higher temperatures and dangerous pollution, but there's another, less commonly understood consequence to today's era-defining CO2 peak.

www.sciencealert.com

An international team of scientists has studied 33 years of satellite data and found that Earth is actually getting significantly greener as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels, with greater carbon emissions over the past three decades leading to a huge increase in the amount of leaves on plants and trees.
—————-
Thriving plants don’t scream degradation

 

[chardog]

I explained why I have no idea. People who "do their own research" never get it right.

And I don't know what to say about dismissing peer review, it's how everything works.

We’re not even close to peak CO2 levels where plants thrive

What should our CO2 levels be ?

 

[dirtypablo]

Climate scientists exist to affirm global warming. The earth heating up is hardly an issue anyhow, the earth freezing would be disastrous.

There is an unrealistic sentiment towards global warming, the ratio of people dying because of the cold far exceeds people dying to heat related issues, it’s not even close. Yet news of hot weather scare mongering is at least 10:1.

How many times does this have to be explained to you for it to sink in?

 

[andnowweknow]

is there any accountability, have they ever asked, where's the money?

George Soros and Obama have all of it...they light cigars with it, pop balloons with said cigars...then they dance on the grave of any prospects the white man with ever have of finally being treated fairly in America.

The urban heat island affect isn't anything new.

 

[chardog]

How many times does this have to be explained to you for it to sink in?

Results vs theory

 

[BearGrounds]

doesn't it bother you that a major contributor to this is an institution that fought against people finding out that cigarettes are bad for people though man?

i mean... for me thats it... i know who these guys are and they have a record of lying to the public and publishing false data.

Sure, it's reason to check the findings for accuracy, as is always the case. They could definitely be bias and pulling some shit.

That aside, does that then mean that the NOAA data does not need to be looked into?

I'm still waiting for proof it's accurate. Trashing the source, even if the source is trash, doesn't accomplish that.

 

[terrapin]

Sure, it's reason to check the findings for accuracy, as is always the case. They could definitely be bias and pulling some shit.

That aside, does that then mean that the NOAA data does not need to be looked into?

I'm still waiting for proof it's accurate. Trashing the source, even if the source is trash, doesn't accomplish that.

I think that organizations background is more than a reason to vet the data better. It's actually a reason to believe that they're absolutely lying.

Fighting against the fact that cigarette smoke was killing kids for profit is fake science and it's worse than most kinds of crime even. They are criminals and liars.

Once they lost that battle they went straight to this new scam. That's more than a reason to be wary of their data. It's a reason to know who they are.

Also, even if those guys had some kind of new breakthrough research and data, a company as big as them would obviously employee serious scientist to vet that before they presented it to the world. The reason they haven't done so is because they can't...

This issue right here man is not a credible issue to be hanging your hat on and the science that you published is fake science and worse than that it's obviously so.

What they did is go and view the testing sites that are in hot areas and then pretend that they actually found those at random so they can extrapolate that to the whole set of data retrieval sites.

That is just the kind of fake science and intentional lying and omitting of facts that we have accused some science people of doing in the other thread. There is no difference at all between the two groups.

Actually it's worse than with those people did in that thread because they were just posting on a forum and not supposedly presenting scientific work to the world.

 

[dirtypablo]

Results vs theory

This has nothing to do with results vs theory, it's you not understanding the problem (or the data surrounding 'cold deaths').

 

[andnowweknow]

I think that organizations background is more than a reason to vet the data better. It's actually a reason to believe that they're absolutely lying.

Fighting against the fact that cigarette smoke was killing kids for profit is fake science and it's worse than most kinds of crime even. They are criminals and liars.

Once they lost that battle they went straight to this new scam. That's more than a reason to be wary of their data. It's a reason to know who they are.

Also, even if those guys had some kind of new breakthrough research and data, a company as big as them would obviously employee serious scientist to vet that before they presented it to the world. The reason they haven't done so is because they can't...

This issue right here man is not a credible issue to be hanging your hat on and the science that you published is fake science and worse than that it's obviously so.

What they did is go and view the testing sites that are in hot areas and then pretend that they actually found those at random so they can extrapolate that to the whole set of data retrieval sites.

That is just the kind of fake science and intentional lying and omitting of facts that we have accused some science people of doing in the other thread. There is no difference at all between the two groups.

This should be the end of this particular inquiry. The reality is that any topic that is complicated, such as climate change, will have people out in left field trying to be contrarians.

There is also the reality that climate understanding, as a scientific inquiry, isn't as advanced as some people make it out to be. We still don't really have a handle in historical climate data with respect to relatively recent (circa the last 2.5m years) swings in the climate that were far more extreme than the current warming trends, some occurring with regularity, so it is fair to have some trepidation at some level with respect to the current "the sky is falling" attitude of the climate science orthodoxy.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Climate scientists exist to affirm global warming. The earth heating up is hardly an issue anyhow, the earth freezing would be disastrous.

There is an unrealistic sentiment towards global warming, the ratio of people dying because of the cold far exceeds people dying to heat related issues, it’s not even close. Yet news of hot weather scare mongering is at least 10:1.

Are you really saying that Exxon and the other energy giants around the world wanted their climate scientists to affirm anthropogenic global warming? Wouldn't that hurt their product? Their scientists have known about this since the 70s.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability-and-reports/advancing-climate-solutions

 

[FIMN]

Climate scientists exist to affirm global warming. The earth heating up is hardly an issue anyhow, the earth freezing would be disastrous.

There is an unrealistic sentiment towards global warming, the ratio of people dying because of the cold far exceeds people dying to heat related issues, it’s not even close. Yet news of hot weather scare mongering is at least 10:1.

Think my IQ dropped a few points reading this.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

This should be the end of this particular inquiry. The reality is that any topic that is complicated, such as climate change, will have people out in left field trying to be contrarians.

There is also the reality that climate understanding, as a scientific inquiry, isn't as advanced as some people make it out to be. We still don't really have a handle in historical climate data with respect to relatively recent (circa the last 2.5m years) swings in the climate that were far more extreme than the current warming trends, some occurring with regularity, so it is fair to have some trepidation at some level with respect to the current "the sky is falling" attitude of the climate science orthodoxy.

I think that the unknown is part of the alarm in the climate community. Scientists see our carbon signature causing and accelerating the heat capture and they don't currently see any mechanism in nature that are for sure going to constrain it. Cloud cover, ice-albedo feedback, changing ocean currents and the carbon cycle, can either amplify or dampen the effects of human-induced warming. So right now, we just don't know.

 

[dirtypablo]

Been there done that


Just waiting for it to go full circle

Thanks for the reminder you get your science information from Hollywood.

 

[andnowweknow]

I think that the unknown is part of the alarm in the climate community. Scientists see our carbon signature causing and accelerating the heat capture and they don't currently see any mechanism in nature that are for sure going to constrain it. Cloud cover, ice-albedo feedback, changing ocean currents and the carbon cycle, can either amplify or dampen the effects of human-induced warming. So right now, we just don't know.

Very fair overall point. One that is not emphasized enough.

 

[dirtypablo]

I think that the unknown is part of the alarm in the climate community. Scientists see our carbon signature causing and accelerating the heat capture and they don't currently see any mechanism in nature that are for sure going to constrain it. Cloud cover, ice-albedo feedback, changing ocean currents and the carbon cycle, can either amplify or dampen the effects of human-induced warming. So right now, we just don't know.

How would ice albedo feedback dampen warming? Clouds can have both a warming and a cooling effect, but I'm not aware of any serious science that suggests the net effect would likely be cooling. We don't have all the details figured out, but the overwhelming consensus is a net amplification of warming, not dampening. I posted a video about it earlier, but here's an article on the same topic - not only is the consensus that the net is more warming, but its becoming increasingly clear that we have massively underestimated the amount of warming. Things are going to get much worse, much faster than expected.

Why Clouds Are the Key to New Troubling Projections on Warming

Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet.

e360.yale.edu

 

[chardog]

Think my IQ dropped a few points reading this.

FACT: you cannot list the optimum CO2 levels
FACT: least amount of people are dying due to the climate reasons in the last 100 years despite fourfold of the population
FACT: The cold is the primary killer in climate deaths
FACT: FIMN=NPC

 

[chardog]

Thanks for the reminder you get your science information from Hollywood.

now you're starting to get it

 

[James Eagle]

Animals need oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide. Plants need carbon dioxide, emit oxygen.

The planet balances it out.


The main influencer is the sun.

they dont understand the reason co2 is up is deforestation

 

[Scerpi]

FACT: you cannot list the optimum CO2 levels
FACT: least amount of people are dying due to the climate reasons in the last 100 years despite fourfold of the population
FACT: The cold is the primary killer in climate deaths
FACT: FIMN=NPC

All these Policy Makers are complete dopes