Obama Speaking the Truth about Global Warming to College Graduates

[SheriffJoe]

You are right consensus is not science. I was referring to what a very smart man wrote. He writes 97% agree. Should I believe him or believe you? Should I believe what 97% predict or should I believe what 3% predict. Considering some of the 3% have been proven to provide false data regarding other studies they have done.

see my thoughts are based on what I have read by scientists, not what Obama says. You base your opinion on pure politics.

This debunked "97% consensus" crap is now the main pillar of the whole 'warming' scam which tells anyone with a modicum of common sense that it's a dying theory - thank god!

Seriously, anyone who begins their argument with this instantly loses all credibility.

For if 'warming' were the alarming concern the radical ideologues say it is, the data would be front and center. But of course the science and data are against the 'warmers', so we are inundated with this meaningless "97%" garbage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/143573/Climate-change-fraud

Climate change 'fraud'

THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming

 

[BleedingPurple]

This debunked "97% consensus" crap is now the main pillar of the whole 'warming' scam which tells anyone with a modicum of common sense that it's a dying theory - thank god!

Seriously, anyone who begins their argument with this instantly loses all credibility.

For if 'warming' were the alarming concern the radical ideologues say it is, the data would be front and center. But of course the science and data are against the 'warmers', so we are inundated with this meaningless "97%" garbage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/143573/Climate-change-fraud

Climate change 'fraud'

THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by fraud”.

Professor Ian Plimer condemned the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy train” going.

In a controversial talk just days before the start of a climate summit attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.

He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that recent warming

It's not a dying theory? How come you don't believe the scientists who I have given but just your own? I have shown 2 of Acceb's scientists have been wrong and have used data that has widely been rejected.

Here is an interview of your next guy Ian Plimer, you guys should seriously research the scientists you post, I mean this guy is laughable, just read the transcript
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot

 

[BleedingPurple]

Ian Plimer has no background in Climate Science
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/accurate-answers-professor-ian-plimer

Unreal just a little digging and you see who has more to gain. Ian Plimer directs 7 mining companies with coal interests.
http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_ian_plimer

Like I said the more I did into these guys against climate change, the more you see they have more to gain. These guys lose all credibility. Do your research,

 

[SheriffJoe]

It's not a dying theory? How come you don't believe the scientists who I have given but just your own? I have shown 2 of Acceb's scientists have been wrong and have used data that has widely been rejected.

Here is an interview of your next guy Ian Plimer, you guys should seriously research the scientists you post, I mean this guy is laughable, just watch.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot

Your 'warming' theory is what's laughable.

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

• Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
  
• Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cts-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz35JRtPWgX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

@)

 

[SheriffJoe]

Ian Plimer has no background in Climate Science
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/accurate-answers-professor-ian-plimer

Unreal just a little digging and you see who has more to gain. Ian Plimer directs 7 mining companies with coal interests.
http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_ian_plimer

Like I said the more I did into these guys against climate change, the more you see they have more to gain. These guys lose all credibility. Do your research,

"climatechange.gov"

"exposethebastards.com"

lmfao

No hidden agenda there, huh?

Listen moron, you lose ALL credibility when you attack the messenger, a la The Guesser.

So Exxon and the coal industry is funding some of these studies? Awesome!

I hope they increase their funding 100x and go after these government-funded commies in earnest.

Energy heats and cools my home, powers my appliances. Energy companies raise my standard of living.

What does Big Climate do for me again, other than give communists like the Kenyan a political platform to erode my freedoms and "spread my wealth around"?

97%!!!

Your side is losing this debate - BADLY.

 

[BleedingPurple]

"climatechange.gov"

"exposethebastards.com"

lmfao

No hidden agenda there, huh?

Listen moron, you lose ALL credibility when you attack the messenger, a la The Guesser.

So Exxon and the coal industry is funding some of these studies? Awesome!

I hope they increase their funding 100x and go after these government-funded commies in earnest.

Energy heats and cools my home, powers my appliances. Energy companies raise my standard of living.

What does Big Climate do for me again, other than give communists like the Kenyan a political platform to erode my freedoms and "spread my wealth around"?

97%!!!

Your side is losing this debate - BADLY.

Hey dipshit is the information they provide fact about Ian Plimer? All I can tell people to do is to google it themselves and reach their own conclusions.

YOU LOSE all credibility posting shit about climate change from a dude like Plimer. Laughable

 

[BleedingPurple]

Your side is losing this debate - BADLY.

Your opinions on who is losing a debate are really useless. You must have your head up your ass. I would bet you are one of those who predicted Romney easily. The fact of the matter is the scientist you provided is a laughable.

 

[BleedingPurple]

Your 'warming' theory is what's laughable.

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

• Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
  
• Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cts-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz35JRtPWgX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

@)

sorry Charlie

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers

 

[SheriffJoe]

Climategate was the final nail in the coffin for this scam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Not to mention the Al Gore Carnival world tour.

Climate frauds will never regain the public's trust, nor should they.

Now we just have to cut off their funding.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Ah yes, the politics of "global warming"...imagine the money that has been pumped into this scam. What a disgrace!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate Cultists

Has the desperate global warming crusade reached its Waterloo?

Steven F. Hayward

June 16, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 38

The climate change crusaders, who have been at it for a quarter-century, appear to be going clinically mad. Start with the rhetorical monotony and worship of authority (“97 percent of all scientists agree!”), add the Salem witch trial-style intimidation and persecution of dissenters, and the categorical demand that debate about science or policy is over because the matter is settled, and you have the profile of a cult-like sectarianism that has descended into paranoia and reflexive bullying. Never mind the scattered and not fully suppressed findings of climate scientists that the narrative of catastrophic global warming is overstated, like nearly every previous predicted environmental apocalypse. It matters not. The recent crescendo of scary government climate reports and dutiful media alarm has paved the way for the Obama administration to throw its weight around in ways that would make Woodrow Wilson blush.

Making sense of this tiresome issue requires stepping back for the long view. If you strip away all of the noise from smaller scientific controversies that clutter the debate—arctic ice, extreme weather events, droughts, and so forth—the central issue is climate sensitivity: How much will average global temperature increase from adding a given level of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere? The most recent “official” estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), given a doubling of greenhouse gases, is a planet 1.1 to 4.8 degrees Celsius warmer a century from now. On the low end of this range—up to as much as 2 degrees—warming would be no big deal, and possibly a net benefit. Warming on the high end of this range would present significant problems, requiring a number of responses. Narrowing the range of outcomes is therefore the most pressing climate science question. Everything else is a sideshow.

It may well be that it can’t be done. Right now the IPCC can’t settle on a best-guess estimate within the 1.1‑4.8 degree range, though a number of scenarios for the year 2100 cluster around 2 degrees of warming. This is nearly the same range and best guess as the previous four reports of the IPCC stretching back to 1990. More astonishing, this range differs little from that proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It was Arrhenius, winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1903, who first supplied the basic equation that forms the basis for modern climate models. Working without a computer, he estimated a range of climate sensitivity from a doubling of greenhouse gases of 1.6 to about 5 degrees Celsius, with a best guess of about 2.1 degrees.

In other words, despite billions spent on climate research and the development of enormously complex computer models, we are no closer to predictive precision than we were 110 years ago. The computer models are still too crude and limited, especially about the crucial question of water vapor “feedbacks” (clouds in ordinary language), to spit out the answers we’re looking for. We can fiddle with the models all we want, and perhaps end up with one that might produce a correct prediction, but we can never be sure so long as our understanding of water vapor behavior remains sketchy.

While climate skeptics are denounced for mentioning “uncertainty,” the terms “uncertain” and “uncertainty” appear 173 times, while “error” and “errors” appear 192 times, in the 218-page chapter on climate models in the latest IPCC report released last September. As the IPCC admits, “there remain significant errors in the model simulation of clouds. It is very likely that these errors contribute significantly to the uncertainties in estimates of cloud feedbacks and consequently in the climate change projections.” The IPCC’s latest report rates the confidence of our understanding of clouds and aerosols as “low,” and allows that it is possible that clouds could cancel out most of the warming effect of greenhouse gases. If anything, our uncertainty about future climate change has increased with each new IPCC report.

The IPCC modeling chapter, which virtually no reporter reads, is also candid in admitting that most of the models have overpredicted recent warming. The 17-years-and-counting plateau in global average temperature, following two decades of a nearly 0.4 degree increase in temperature that boosted the warming narrative for a time, is the biggest embarrassment for a supposed scientific “consensus” since Piltdown Man. The basic theory says we’re supposed to continue warming at about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, but since the late 1990s we’ve stopped. In one of the infamous emails revealed in the East Anglia “climategate” scandal of 2009, Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist, called it a “travesty” that scientists couldn’t give a good reason for the pause.

They’ve been scrambling ever since, offering a variety of explanations, but none of them can minimize the fact that nearly all of the models failed to predict a “pause” of this length, and if the “pause” continues for another 5 to 10 years, all of the models will be falsified.

Where is the missing heat? The climateers are certain it is going into the deep ocean, and while this is a plausible theory, we have very little data to substantiate the hypothesis, and still less understanding of how this might play out in the future if it is happening. If the El Niño (warmer than average surface temperatures in the Pacific) predicted for this coming year is as big as some current data suggest, we may well see a global temperature spike commensurate with the El Niño-related spike of 1998. The specific effects of high El Niño years are hard to predict, but if there is an El Niño-related spike next year, you can be sure the climate campaigners will loudly proclaim that “the pause is over!” But this would obfuscate rather than clarify the reasons for the pause. Other explanations for the pause include western Pacific wind patterns, aerosols, and solar variation. (This last explanation is ironic, since the climateers have been adamant up to now that solar variation plays very little role in climate change.) Some or all of these may be factors, but the difficulty the climate community is having provides reason to doubt their grasp of a matter we are consistently assured is “settled.”

The temperature plateau and the persistent limitations and errors of the computer models strongly suggest the kind of “anomalies” that Thomas Kuhn famously explained should constitute a crisis for dominant scientific theories. What’s more, several papers recently published in the peer-reviewed literature conclude climate sensitivity is much lower than previously thought, making the problem of climate change much less likely to be catastrophic and more likely to be easily managed. But with the notable exceptions of the Economist and straight-shooting New York Times science blogger Andrew Revkin, these heterodox findings, which have steadily eroded the catastrophic climate change narrative, have received almost no media attention.

Despite all this, there has been not even the hint of a second thought from the climateers, nor any reflection that their opinions or strategies could bear some modification. The environmental community is so deeply invested in looming catastrophe that it’s difficult to envision a scientific result that would alter their cult-like bearing. Rather than reflect, they deflect, blaming the Koch brothers, the fossil fuel industry, and Republican “climate deniers” for their lack of political progress. Yet organized opposition to climate change fanaticism is tiny compared with the swollen staffs and huge marketing budgets of the major environmental organizations, not to mention the government agencies around the world that have thrown in with them on the issue.

The main energy trade associations seldom speak up about climate science controversies. The major conservative think tanks have no climate change programs to speak of. The Cato Institute devotes just two people to the issue. The main opposition to climate fanaticism is confined to the Heartland Institute, the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and a scattering of relentless bloggers who have acquired surprisingly large readerships.

That’s it. These are boutique operations next to the environmental establishment: The total budgets for all of these efforts would probably not add up to a month’s spending by just the Sierra Club. And yet we are to believe that this comparatively small effort has kept the climate change agenda at bay. It certainly keeps climateers in an uproar.k:

Instead of confronting the fact that their cause has foundered mostly of its own dead weight—and the sheer fantasy of proposals for near-term replacement of hydrocarbon energy—the climate campaigners have steadily ratcheted up their bad-faith arguments and grasping authoritarianism. The result is a catalogue of exaggerated claims and appalling clichés, the most egregious being the refrain that “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change.” This dubious talking point elides seamlessly into the implication that scientists should strive for unanimity and link arms in full support of the environmentalists’ carbon-suppression agenda.

Where did this 97 percent figure come from? When you explore the lineage of this cliché, it appears about as convincing as a North Korean election. Most footnotes point to a paper published last year by Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland, which purported to have reviewed the abstracts of over 11,000 climate science articles. But the abstract of Cook’s paper actually refutes the talking point:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. [Emphasis added.]

​

In other words, two-thirds of the articles expressed no opinion about the human causation of climate change, while the one-third that did were twisted by Cook into a simpleminded tautology: Among all the scientists who agree with the “consensus” are all of the scientists who agree with the consensus. Cook, incidentally, refused to share how he and his graduate students coded the 11,000 abstracts, which is reminiscent of the East Anglia cabal and their withholding of tree ring data. But as with the East Anglia group, someone at the University of Queensland left the data on the Internet, where blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses. The predictable happened: The University of Queensland claimed that the data had been hacked, and sent Shollenberger a cease-and-desist letter. Nothing bespeaks confidence and transparency like the threat of lawsuits.

The only real surprise about Cook’s conclusion is that the number wasn’t 100 percent, since a human role in climate change is acknowledged by every single prominent climate skeptic including Pat Michaels, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Freeman Dyson, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen. Studies like Cook’s seek to establish something that virtually no one is arguing. The real argument is over how much future warming is reasonable to expect. Lindzen, Michaels, and others think that we’ve seen most of the temperature increase we’re likely to see, even with further increases in greenhouse gas levels.

The climate establishment refuses to argue the matter. Instead, it has stepped up its vilification and intimidation of any scientist who expresses the slightest deviation from their increasingly narrow orthodoxy. Nate Silver, the celebrated wunderkind who left the New York Times to found FiveThirtyEight, summoned forth the full fury of the climateers when he enlisted Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado to write about climate change and natural disasters. Pielke is no climate skeptic, but he is scrupulous about the data and rightly annoyed when the climate establishment exaggerates data on extreme weather disasters like hurricanes for political purposes.

But Pielke’s treatment (FiveThirtyEight commissioned a rebuttal to his article) was mild compared with that of Len-nart Bengtsson, a prominent Swedish meteorologist with a long record in climate science circles. Despite being a fixture of the climate establishment, including serving as director of Germany’s prestigious Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bengtsson has always been cautious and warned against “oversimplification” and politicization of climate change. As far back as 1990 Bengtsson astutely noted:

In case of the greenhouse effect there is an interaction between media, politics and science. Every group pushes the other groups. Science is under pressure because everyone wants our advice. However, we cannot give the impression that a catastrophe is imminent. The greenhouse effect is a problem that is here to stay for hundreds of years. Climate experts should have the courage to state that we are not yet sure. What is wrong with making that statement clear and loudly?

​

Last year he wrote online:

In the very emotional climate debate today is it hardly possible to have a sensible and balanced exchange of views. If you do not support climate catastrophes .  .  . you are placed into a deniers box and accused to support the interest of the oil industry or alternatively that you are a man in a senior age and therefore unable to understand the concerns of the younger generations. Some of our colleagues are exposed to a powerful group pressure or that of a politically correct boss. The real genuine interest in climate and climate processes is fading away.
​

That much dissent might have been tolerated, but when Bengtsson agreed early last month to join the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), it was a step too far. His affiliation lasted barely a week. The news of his joining the GWPF generated a firestorm of attacks. Bengtsson wrote on May 14 to GWPF chairman David Henderson to withdraw his affiliation:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
​

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

In response to a query about the pressure campaign, Bengtsson declined to offer more detail, emailing only that “the field of climate change has been politically distorted to a degree that I was not aware of. I very much regret this, as I am afraid that this is harming the scientific independence of climate research and perhaps for science in general.”

It is clear that the climate establishment has become as narrowly intolerant as any department of gender studies on a college campus, and for much the same reason. The frenetic publicity campaigns of recent months—the hyped reports of imminent climate catastrophe and the serial exaggerations of the prognosis of the West Antarctic ice sheet, polar bear numbers, extreme weather events, and so forth—were designed to provide unstoppable momentum behind the Obama administration’s remarkable assertion of executive power unveiled on June 2: regulations aimed at putting coal-fired electricity in the course of ultimate extinction in the United States.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-cultists_794401.html

 

[Acebb]

"climatechange.gov"

"exposethebastards.com"

lmfao

No hidden agenda there, huh?

Listen moron, you lose ALL credibility when you attack the messenger, a la The Guesser.

So Exxon and the coal industry is funding some of these studies? Awesome!

I hope they increase their funding 100x and go after these government-funded commies in earnest.

Energy heats and cools my home, powers my appliances. Energy companies raise my standard of living.

What does Big Climate do for me again, other than give communists like the Kenyan a political platform to erode my freedoms and "spread my wealth around"?

97%!!!

Your side is losing this debate - BADLY.

He is a total moon bat.

Expose the bastards!!!!

 

[BleedingPurple]

He is a total moon bat.

Expose the bastards!!!!

Like I said you don't have use that websit just google the guy and you will find out he's not even a
climate scientist. Just read up on him, it doesn't matter, there are many many sources about how laughable he is as a climate scientists and where his financial agenda is. Just google him

 

[akphidelt]

You can pretty much count the number of scientists who research and publish peer reviewed articles on climate change who don't agree that it's man mad on one hand.

It's a settled issue for everyone else. Not even really a debate anymore except in the conservative blogosphere.

 

[pubguy]

You can pretty much count the number of scientists who research and publish peer reviewed articles on climate change who don't agree that it's man mad on one hand.

It's a settled issue for everyone else. Not even really a debate anymore except in the conservative blogosphere.

Except that the KEY question in the whole climate debate is still uncertain. The climate sensitivity is the theoretical amount of expected warming due to a doubling of the pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2. In AR5 the IPCC set the current scientific consensus at between 2C and 4.5C. Dr. Judith Curry in her recently published paper, used the IPCC's own data and came to a much lower sensitivity figure. The prevailing scientific opinion continues to lower the sensitivity estimate. If it stands at 1C to 2C then all the alarm has surely been overblown.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/