----- Original Message -----
From: Len Cranford
To: apopeeso@comcast.net ; pyrigenes
; Chris
D.
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Global Warming scam every winter;
[Denninger;]
Time to increase my long pitchforks, torches, lamposts and boiled rope trade, I suspect.
The
words are hurled around like epithets.
People
who reject the findings of climate science are dismissed as “deniers” and
“disinformers.” Those who accept the science are attacked as “alarmists” or “warmistas.
” The latter term, evoking the Sandinista revolutionaries of Nicaragua, is
perhaps meant to suggest that the science is part of some socialist plot.
In the
long-running political battles over climate change, the fight about what to
call the various factions has been going on for a long time. Recently, though,
the issue has taken a new turn, with a public appeal that has garnered 22,000
signatures and counting.
The
petition asks the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for
people who question climate science, “skeptic,” and call them “climate deniers”
instead.
Yes, and the so-called "climate denier" label is intended to evoke The Holocaust, which is an outrageous and intentional appeal to a factually-known act of mass-murder that left a few million skeletons behind as evidence.[Not true! Show me the "Jew" Skeletons!]
The problem with so-called "climate science" is that it's not science at all; it's hucksterism and fraud. Let's look at a few (and only a few!) of the problems that the so-called "climate change" people peddle.
1. It was called "global warming", but when the warming stopped and failed to verify against the claims of their computer models for 15 years running they changed their name. That's fraud.
2. Only something like 3% of the surface of the earth has a temperature probe covering a place in the immediate vicinity. That's a lack of data.
3. There has been zero control, intentionally, for the change in the surface of the earth immediately surrounding said temperature probes. Specifically, over time as development has continued people do things like put blacktop roads and parking lots near said probes, which raises the local temperature (due to the sun heating the material, not atmospheric composition.) This impact must be adjusted out, preferably by adding more probes in other, non-developed places, but it isn't -- intentionally.
4. The CO2 "balance" allegedly from human activity intentionally ignores sub-sea volcanic production of CO2. There are an enormous number of these, by the way, and yet there is no so-called greenhouse-gas model that attempts to place upper and lower boundaries on their emissions. It is entirely possible, by the way, that due to this (and the error bands for above-ground volcanic release) man-made CO2 emissions are immaterial -- whether CO2 is involved in climate change or not!
5. The entire premise of CO2 as a "greenhouse gas" flows back to experiments over a hundred years ago. Unfortunately the premise for same may have been flawed as the scientist involved did not understand the difference between opacity and absorption spectra; that simply wasn't understood at the time.
6. The largest "greenhouse gas" in terms of actual absorption spectra is in fact di-hydrogen monoxide. In fact nearly all of the absorption of solar heat that takes place in the atmosphere does so by di-hydrogen monoxide simply because all the other gasses involved are trace gases by comparison.
7. Oceanic sequestering of carbon is in fact a chemical buffering reaction. Chemical buffering reactions are, as their name implies, buffers. Their equilibrium pointshifts with temperature (and often other things, such as pH.) This is important because the amount of carbon contained in such compounds is enormous (many times that in the atmosphere itself) and this in turn implies that the atmospheric CO2 released or absorbed by same is a consequence of temperature, not a cause.
8. There are many (in fact, it is essentially universal among the climate screamer crowd) claims that temperature and CO2 levels are "highest" ever peddled around; this is clearly false and intentionally ignores earth's history. The last couple of thousand years, or even the last hundred thousand years is immaterial in terms of this rock's geology (and environment.) The intentional and willful refusal to consider the history of the planet beyond a few thousand years in the past found in the "climate change" screamers is exactly identical to those who claim that evolution "didn't happen" and "God created" by claiming that the world is only 5,000 years old. Further, and perhaps most-damning to their argument is the fact that in geologic terms we're still warming after the most-recent ice age -- when you'd expect the planet to get warmer. Obviously the previous ice ages did not feature Al Gore and President Obama flying around in jet aircraft spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere nor did this one until very recently.
9. There is near-universal "acceptance" of the claim that higher CO2 levels are bad. But greater CO2 levels are factually known to increase the growth rate of plants. Plants, of course, both provide food directly to humans and also provide food to animals that humans like to eat. Increased food productivity is good, not bad.
10. The CO2 load (by emissions) of a person in America is much higher than that of one in Mexico -- or other "less-developed" nations. If CO2 is such a terrible problem where are the calls for an immediate cessation of human migration from undeveloped to developed nations, along with deportation of all such persons who have previous migrated, as such an act is equivalent to the intentional destruction of the planet?
11. There have been multiple examples found of data being "adjusted" and all said adjustments have been one-way -- upward. This is statistically impossible; anyone with even a modicum of statistical training understands that statistically speaking adjustments to data should cluster around the mean with a few outlying points. When all of the adjustments are in one direction it is a virtual certainty that the intention of said adjustment is to deceive.
12. When said "adjustments" are removed from the data the so-called "precipitous warming" of the last half of the 20th century entirely disappears.
13. 10 years ago the global scaremongers told us that global warming was going to cause more and nastier hurricanes that would decimate the United States coastline. Wilma, which hit Florida in October, was the last serious hurricane impact on the state; in point of fact the hurricane incidence has precipitously declinedsince 2005 in terms of impacts on the United States.
Oh, yeah, this is the short list. I could probably come up with 100 bullet points if I was willing to spend more than 20 minutes or so on the subject.
In short exactly who is the "denier"? When you look at the facts surrounding this alleged "warming" what you find is cooked data, intentional refusal to consider time frames beyond the immediate past in geologic terms, the slander of those who point out the deceptions, omissions and outright lies of those pressing the agenda along with rank hypocrisy (Obama and Gore flying around in jets spewing monstrous amounts of CO2 into the air while claiming it's a "serious problem".)
Indeed, it would appear that those who "believe" in so-called "global warming" (or "climate change" if you prefer) are in fact displaying the same sort of "magical thinking", along with abject fraud, that "decorates" the claims of those who state that "God Created" and that it is not evolution that is responsible for the diversity and progress of various plants and animals upon this rock.
Here's looking at you Justin Gillis.
----- Original Message -----
From: Len Cranford
To: apopeeso@comcast.net ; pyrigenes
; Chris
D.
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 7:08 AM
Subject: Global Warming scam every winter;
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Woods
No comments:
Post a Comment