Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Scott Sando

November 20, 2009: The Day “Global Warming” Ended

Recommended Posts

November 20, 2009: The Day “Global Warming” Ended

Alan Caruba

Thursday, November 18, 2010

'November 20, 2009 is an important date because it was the day that “global warming” ended. It was the day that a total fabrication, a hoax, was revealed to be the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aided and abetted by a vast network of governmental and business leaders, a compliant media, and scientists who sold their souls for grants and other funding.

It was the day that Al Gore was shown to be unworthy to share a Nobel Peace Prize with the iniquitous IPCC, nor an Oscar for his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

It was the day that Cap-and-Trade legislation, the largest tax ever on energy use, was eviscerated as lacking any basis in science. The legislation proposed to establish a “carbon credits” trade that would have enriched the Chicago Climate Exchange created by investors that included Goldman Sachs. Following the “global warming” hoax revelations, the Exchange would close its doors within a year.

November 20 was the day that three thousand emails between the meteorologists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, specifically its director, Phil Jones, and Penn State’s Michael Mann, as well as others involved in the hoax were made available on the Internet.

The Washington Times reported that “Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner rejected the revelations in the email exchanges, saying “I’m sticking with the 2,500,” referring to the IPCC climate science members. “These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.” This, like all the other assertions about “global warming” was a lie.

It must be noted that President Barack Obama continues to talk about “climate change”, the term used to replace “global warming”. His administration has many “global warming” advocates including his science advisor, Dr. John Holden, and Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. The Environmental Protection Agency is engaged in securing authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas emissions” as this is being written.

The administration’s funding through subsidies and mandates for “renewable energy” sources such as solar and wind energy is entirely based on the assertion that the generation of energy by coal-fired plants, is causing “global warming.” Neither solar, nor wind can even begin to provide sufficient energy for the nation, now or in the future. Support for ethanol, a biofuel, is equally without merit.

The primary assertion behind “global warming” was that it was “anthropogenic”, created by human activity, primarily the burning of “fossil fuels” by utilities to generate electricity and by industrial users. Similarly the use of oil derivatives, gasoline and diesel for transportation is blamed.

A segment of IPCC members did not support the global warming hoax and tried for years to marshall opposition to the Panel’s findings, published in reports shot through with baseless distortions and assertions that the Earth was heating to an extraordinary degree. Over time, they came forth and publicly disputed the IPCC for spreading the “global warming” hoax.

A year earlier in 2008, testifying before a congressional committee, Dr. Roy Spencer, the principal research scientist of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said, “Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

“The warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural,” said Dr. Spencer, adding that whatever warming had occurred had since been replaced by satellite data documenting that the Earth had “not warmed for at least seven years now.”

A “little ice age” from about 1300 to 1850 was well known to meteorologists and climate scientists.. Dennis T. Avery, the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, noted in April 2008 that “The Earth’s warming since 1850 totals about 0.7 degrees C. Most of this occurred before 1940.” The global warming hoax went into high gear in the late 1980s when no significant warming was occurring. Avery, too, noted that “The Earth has experienced no discernible temperature increase since 1998, nearly nine years ago.”

Following the leaked emails, on November 26, 2009, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal concluded that “the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.”

By then, however, the lies put forth by the IPCC had been debunked by a series of international conferences on climate change sponsored by The Heartland Institute. Participants represented many internationally respected climate scientists.

How profitable was it for those involved? Al Gore and others are alleged to have made millions from the now defunct Chicago-based Climate Change Exchange. The emails revealed that CRU director Phil Jones had, since 1990, collected a staggering 13.7 million British pounds (about #22.6 million US) in grants.

In the United States, an estimated $50 to $60 billion in government grants for climate research had been squandered since the late 1980s when James E. Hansen, a NASA employee, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), testified before a congressional committee claiming that a massive heating of the Earth was occurring.

Drs. Mann and Jones have both been exonerated by the universities for their work, but there has been a seismic shift in the scientific community as institutions such as the Royal Society in England have begun to back off from their support of the “global warming” hoax.

The “global warming” hoax was supported vociferously by the mainstream media in the U.S. and around the world. The worst offenders have been The New York Times, Newsweek and Time magazines, but there are others too numerous to list, including leading scientific publications.

On November 20, 2009, the world began to awake from a totally fictitious nightmare called “global warming.” It persists among those desperate to keep the truth from reaching a world that has been duped by the largest collection of governmental leaders, politicians, scientists, and media collaborators ever to engage in such a Big Lie.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avery, too, noted that "The Earth has experienced no discernible temperature increase since 1998, nearly nine years ago."

Yes, 1998 was an unusually hot year. If you pick 1997 or 1999 as your reference point, the earth has experienced a very measurable temperature increase.

Is any climate change denialist able to come up with anything better than misused statistics and ad-hominem attacks?

The so called "warmists" don't claim that CO2 levels are the only thing that affects global temperatures, just one of the factors. Another one is sunspot activity which moves in a cycle. 1998 was the high point in the cycle, and we have just come out of the low point on the cycle. That is one reason why 1998 was much warmer than the years before or afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, 1998 was an unusually hot year. If you pick 1997 or 1999 as your reference point, the earth has experienced a very measurable temperature increase.

Is any climate change denialist able to come up with anything better than misused statistics and ad-hominem attacks?

The so called "warmists" don't claim that CO2 levels are the only thing that affects global temperatures, just one of the factors. Another one is sunspot activity which moves in a cycle. 1998 was the high point in the cycle, and we have just come out of the low point on the cycle. That is one reason why 1998 was much warmer than the years before or afterwards.

Yawn! You are boring me now, I'm going to go light my coal fire and warm my freezing toes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, 1998 was an unusually hot year. If you pick 1997 or 1999 as your reference point, the earth has experienced a very measurable temperature increase.

Is any climate change denialist able to come up with anything better than misused statistics and ad-hominem attacks?

The so called "warmists" don't claim that CO2 levels are the only thing that affects global temperatures, just one of the factors. Another one is sunspot activity which moves in a cycle. 1998 was the high point in the cycle, and we have just come out of the low point on the cycle. That is one reason why 1998 was much warmer than the years before or afterwards.

So more importantly, can you tell us if we're going to get a decent summer next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So more importantly, can you tell us if we're going to get a decent summer next year?

No. That is a question about weather rather than climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. That is a question about weather rather than climate.

I thought you could predict it using sun spot cycles.. wasn't that the whole point of your arguement?! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, 1998 was an unusually hot year. If you pick 1997 or 1999 as your reference point, the earth has experienced a very measurable temperature increase.

Is any climate change denialist able to come up with anything better than misused statistics and ad-hominem attacks?

The so called "warmists" don't claim that CO2 levels are the only thing that affects global temperatures, just one of the factors. Another one is sunspot activity which moves in a cycle. 1998 was the high point in the cycle, and we have just come out of the low point on the cycle. That is one reason why 1998 was much warmer than the years before or afterwards.

Q. What on earth are you doing?

R I'm just moving these goal posts.

Q Oh, I see, you are a believer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, 1998 was an unusually hot year. If you pick 1997 or 1999 as your reference point, the earth has experienced a very measurable temperature increase.

Is any climate change denialist able to come up with anything better than misused statistics and ad-hominem attacks?

The so called "warmists" don't claim that CO2 levels are the only thing that affects global temperatures, just one of the factors. Another one is sunspot activity which moves in a cycle. 1998 was the high point in the cycle, and we have just come out of the low point on the cycle. That is one reason why 1998 was much warmer than the years before or afterwards.

I bet you wear sandals dont you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you could predict it using sun spot cycles.. wasn't that the whole point of your arguement?! :blink:

Sun spots is one factor. There will be more sun spots next year than this year. That will have a warming influence. Other factors include things like whether or not it is an el-nino or la-nino year, and how many volcanos erupt. I have no idea what will happen next year in respect of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you wear sandals dont you?

My choice of footwear has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not CO2 causes global warming.

But for the record, no, I don't wear sandals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q. What on earth are you doing?

R I'm just moving these goal posts.

Q Oh, I see, you are a believer.

One data sample says temperatures are going down. Every single other data sample says temperatures are going up. The denialists pick the one sample that supports their argument and ignore every other one, then accuse everyone else of being unscientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonb, your talking balls and you know you are.

Care to explain why you think I'm talking balls? Your youtube video doesn't add anything new to the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sun spots is one factor. There will be more sun spots next year than this year. That will have a warming influence. Other factors include things like whether or not it is an el-nino or la-nino year, and how many volcanos erupt.

are they all man made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One data sample says temperatures are going down. Every single other data sample says temperatures are going up. The denialists pick the one sample that supports their argument and ignore every other one, then accuse everyone else of being unscientific.

so what?

warmer/colder, temperature moves in cycles, always has and always will. Nothing to do with man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are they all man made?

No, these are natural factors. CO2 emmissions is man made as are emmissions of other greenhouse gases such as methane. Because of the natural factors, you have to look at long term trends rather than year to year movements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, these are natural factors. CO2 emmissions is man made as are emmissions of other greenhouse gases such as methane. Because of the natural factors, you have to look at long term trends rather than year to year movements.

longterm patterns?

the giza plateau used to be lush and green but in the time of ancient egypt became dry and arid. They didnt have any cars.

around 10,000 years ago the last ice age ended and melt water raised the sea level to swamp doggerland and form the english channel. No cars then either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.