| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bnzoo
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: The Global Warming Scam |
 |
|
October 2008
This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the
evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of
greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate.
QUOTE: Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so
ahead, the claim is made that "climate" can be predicted 100 years
ahead.
QUOTE: Methane is mostly recycled plant material, unrelated to fossil
fuels, yet it is used to penalise farmers for animal recycling, when the
larger emissions from wetlands are exempt.
QUOTE: No resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to
predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are mere
"projections". Since the projections are far into the future, nobody
living is able to check their validity.
QUOTE: Since no model has been validated, they are "evaluated" based on
"simulations", which are mere correlations, often obtained by adjusting
the many poorly characterized parameters to give a "fudged fit".
QUOTE: Future "projections", which combine the untested models and
exaggerated "scenarios" are graded for their "likelihood" from the
unsupported opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious
"probability" attached to these opinions is without mathematical or
scientific justification
The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the
Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission
of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to
provide evidence for this belief.
They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to
have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail
and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship
between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the
climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC
Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.
In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of
greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to
solve three problems
- To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is
increasing
- To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the
atmosphere
- To reliably predict changes in future climate
None of these problems has been solved
It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the
earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to
measure "anomalies" of this unknown quantity.
An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by
the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of
cyclic behaviour. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950. An
absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the
cool part of the cycle is imminent.
The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with
most of it over the tropics and very little over the poles. Yet the IPCC
tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its "anomalies"
can be treated as "feedback" to the global temperature models.
Carbon dioxide is only measured in extremely restricted circumstances in
order to pretend that it is "well-mixed".
No general measurements are reported and 90,000 early measurements which
show great variability have been suppressed.
Methane is mostly recycled plant material, unrelated to fossil fuels,
yet it is used to penalise farmers for animal recycling, when the larger
emissions from wetlands are exempt.
Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead, the
claim is made that "climate" can be predicted 100 years ahead. The claim
is based on the development of computer models based on the "flat earth"
theory of the climate which assumes it is possible to model the climate
from "balanced" average energy quantities
This assumption is absurd since all the quantities have skewed
distributions with no acceptable average. No resulting model has ever
been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted
as the model outputs are mere "projections". Since the projections are
far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity.
Since no model has been validated, they are "evaluated" based on
"simulations", which are mere correlations, often obtained by adjusting
the many poorly characterized parameters to give a "fudged fit".
Several such attempts fail to agree with observations.
Future "projections", which combine the untested models and exaggerated
"scenarios" are graded for their "likelihood" from the unsupported
opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious "probability"
attached to these opinions is without mathematical or scientific
justification
Humans affect climate by changes in urban development and land use, but
there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are involved, except
in enhancing plant growth.
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/GlobalScam3a.pdf
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the
observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails behind
is perfect. It>s like predicting the morning>s weather at six-o>clock in
the evening.." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology,
Western Washington University |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Ouroboros_Rex
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Scam |
|
|
bnzoo wrote:
[quote]http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
[/quote]
= denialist lie site. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
bznoo
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Scam |
|
|
"Lloyd" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:fc5dd00e-9c8b-4a5f-84e7-1cfb51f98b34@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 11:03 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 7:15 am, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:59 am, "bnzoo" <bn...@rs.com> wrote:
QUOTE: No resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to
predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are
mere
"projections". Since the projections are far into the future,
nobody
living is able to check their validity.
Totally false. We test models all the time.
Lloyd, can you explain to us how you/they test the validity of model
projections that are a hundred years into the future?
You feed in conditions of the past and see if the model predicts[/quote]
current conditions.
****************************************
ROTFLMAO
Yeh right, the climate is that simple!!!!
There is a total disconnect between the simplicity of the debunked
models and the complexity of global climate.
********************************************
I can model adding HCl to water. My model predicts if I do, the pH
will decrease. That>s predicting what will happen in the future.
******************************************************
You>re joking right?
How can you compare a simple chemical reaction with something as complex
as global climate?
You are absolutely, starkly, barking mad.
And the predictions, so far are totally WRONG, which you would expect
from junk science!!
The Sorry History Of Climate Model Predictions
16 Sep 2008
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting realistic results."
The computer models upon which the UN>s climate panel unwisely founds
its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to predict major
events in the real climate.
a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in
"global warming":
b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since late
2001; temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015
(Keenlyside et al., 2008).
c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS
from 1940-1975;
d. nor 50 years' cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the
Arctic (Soon, 2005);
e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006;
Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the
Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration
(IPCC, 2007);
i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of
prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the
Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in
the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005);
m. nor the consequent surface "global warming" on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune>s
largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface
temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost
all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1803
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
(analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
bznoo
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Scam |
|
|
"Ralph" <nospam@noway.net> wrote in message
news:1ipmjoy.v12mogz36d3nN%nospam@noway.net...
[quote]Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
Totally false. We test models all the time.
You know why these university professors love doing government grant
funded climate models?
1) They can work on them at their leasure in their spare time.
2) They can take their work home with them and work on them between
semisters.
3) They usually already have a computer at work and at home, so unlike
field work or weather monitoring there>s very little expense for
researchers.
4) They can have graduate students do most of the work for them.
5) There>s little way for outsiders to know if any progress was made
or
if even any work was done.
6) They are so complicated that it>s practically impossible to have
any
problems exposed by peer review.
7) Since all the weather models disagree and none predict the weather,
your weather model is just as good as anyone elses no matter how bad
it
is.
8) It>s not hard to tweek the model to produce the results you want.
9) All that free advertising in the mainstream media to promote
funding
for your AGW research.
[/quote]
..... and further ...
The Sorry History Of Climate Model Predictions
16 Sep 2008
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting realistic results."
The computer models upon which the UN>s climate panel unwisely founds
its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to predict major
events in the real climate.
a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in
"global warming":
b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since late
2001; temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015
(Keenlyside et al., 2008).
c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS
from 1940-1975;
d. nor 50 years' cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the
Arctic (Soon, 2005);
e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006;
Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the
Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration
(IPCC, 2007);
i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of
prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the
Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in
the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005);
m. nor the consequent surface "global warming" on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune>s
largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface
temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost
all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1803
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"How does a small increase in a very small component [of CO2] have such
a large apparent effect [On Climate]? The truth is that no one has yet
shown that it does." Don Aitkin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
bznoo
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Scam |
|
|
"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@casual.com> wrote in message
news:iZmdne8CefWsg5fUnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
[quote]Ralph wrote:
Lloyd <lparker@emory.edu> wrote:
Totally false. We test models all the time.
You know why these university professors love doing government grant
funded climate models?
1) They can work on them at their leasure in their spare time.
2) They can take their work home with them and work on them between
semisters.
3) They usually already have a computer at work and at home, so
unlike
field work or weather monitoring there>s very little expense for
researchers.
4) They can have graduate students do most of the work for them.
5) There>s little way for outsiders to know if any progress was made
or if even any work was done.
6) They are so complicated that it>s practically impossible to have
any problems exposed by peer review.
7) Since all the weather models disagree and none predict the
weather,
your weather model is just as good as anyone elses no matter how bad
it is.
8) It>s not hard to tweek the model to produce the results you want.
9) All that free advertising in the mainstream media to promote
funding for your AGW research.
Made-up crap.
[/quote]
OK try this on for size!!!
The Sorry History Of Climate Model Predictions
16 Sep 2008
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting realistic results."
The computer models upon which the UN>s climate panel unwisely founds
its entire case have failed and failed and failed again to predict major
events in the real climate.
a. The models have not projected the current multidecadal stasis in
"global warming":
b. no rise in temperatures since 1998; falling temperatures since late
2001; temperatures not expected to set a new record until 2015
(Keenlyside et al., 2008).
c. nor (until trained ex post facto) did they predict the fall in TS
from 1940-1975;
d. nor 50 years' cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the
Arctic (Soon, 2005);
e. nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006;
Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);
f. nor the behavior of the great ocean oscillations (Lindzen, 2007),
g. nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the
Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age;
h. nor the decline since 2000 in atmospheric methane concentration
(IPCC, 2007);
i. nor the active 2004 hurricane season;
j. nor the inactive subsequent seasons;
k. nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of
prolonged droughts only six weeks previously);
l. nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the
Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in
the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005);
m. nor the consequent surface "global warming" on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune>s
largest moon, and even distant Pluto;
n. nor the eerily-continuing 2006 solar minimum;
o. nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in surface
temperature from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost
all of the observed warming of the 20th century.
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1803
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the
suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our
schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra -
that 'the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As
'the
ice melts' and 'sea level rises' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer!
Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average
citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, and lulled into mindless acceptance.
.... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the
position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ...
Marcel Leroux
It should be abundantly clear by now that the AGW hypothesis is
contradicted by the facts/measurements/observations and should
therefore be abandoned and be substituted by a hypothesis which
better matches the facts.
- Hans Labohm
> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
