Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
1

Volume V (Five - 5) focused on the fraud perpetrated by the ‘Warmist’ advocates.
Many examples were revealed and brought to light showing the lengths to which the early, as well as later, advocates of the scheme know as Global Warming(GW)/Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGWman-made)/And now, more simply and safely, Climate Change.
It is hoped in this, Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise, to now look at literature and articles showing how alliances have been created (touched upon in numerous articles so far) and how these crumbling alliances expose the depth of this fraud.

Snap those safety belts…Its going to be another rough ride…:smiley:

# #

Starting off…a well researched and presented article by Norman Rogers, senior policy adviser at the Heartland Institute. He has a personal website: climateviews.com. The Heartland Institute is sponsoring an international climate conference in Chicago in May 2012.

[quote]Global Warming Dogma and the New Iron Triangle
(excert)
…The advocates of apocalyptic global warming have a lot in common with doomsday cults1. Compared to the typical doomsday cult, the global warming cultists are better-educated and use the jargon of science to make their beliefs sound reasonable. The global warmers have the special advantage of generous government financing. Billions of dollars of government money is spent on climate research and low-carbon energy schemes. The money buys impressive political support.

An iron triangle, in political usage, describes a strong lobbying interest with three mutually supporting components. The iron triangle of interests that promotes government support for global warming consists of big science, environmental organizations, and alternative energy industries.

The advocates of global warming are beginning to have the classic doomsday cult problem. The Earth hasn’t been warming for 16 years, and that’s starting to get very embarrassing. The first adjustment to the dogma was to stop talking about global warming and start talking about climate change. The latest version of the party line is that we are going to have more extreme weather. The reality is that the weather is not any more variable or extreme than in the past. But with suitable fishing in the data, it is easy to make a case that this or that weather phenomenon has become more extreme.

The scientific case for disastrous human-caused global warming is very weak. But the case is cloaked in hard-to-understand scientific jargon and thus receives credibility that it doesn’t deserve. The International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, is the Vatican of the global warming cult. Other subsidiary authorities, such as the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), generally take the pronouncements of the IPCC as infallible truths.

The IPCC predictions of global warming are supposedly the carefully considered product of the world’s best climate scientists, using strict guidelines to assure quality control. Author Donna Laframboise undertook the major project of examining how the IPCC actually operates. The result was the book The delinquent teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert. The IPCC was revealed as a sloppy organization, breaking its supposed rules constantly2. Yet Laframboise’s revelation has had little effect on those who are committed believers in global warming dogma or who benefit financially from global warming.
…(more at link)[/quote]

Just a few delicious tidbits from the article.
More to come…of course.

2

I certainly hope you are right and that AGW is not happening, and that bad things will not happen to the world as a result of our own greed or shortsightedness.

But I think your whole “Warmist Conspiracy” is even weaker as a hypothesis than AGW. I mean, you quote highly subjective sources, who blithely assert that it is not happening, as if it was that simple to make the call. And they - and you - assert that the whole thing is a put up job for money and power. I find it hard to believe that there would be such a consensus within the peer-reviewed expert meteorologist community, all based on deliberate distortion of the truth. Some people would do that, for sure, but not so many. Maybe they have been over zealous out of concern, and doubtless there is a certain concept of orthodoxy and some evidence of groupthink. But a massive conspiracy? That seems pretty lame to me

3

“warmist”??

4

has anyone gotten around to refuting the claims of Gray and Morner? I am still waiting…

We did receive a few attempts at dismissing his claims but… not very satisfactory in my view. We have people on the ground. The sealevels are not rising. The best that we get now is that sealevel rises are “only one part” of the equation… strange then that merely a few months ago, we were told that rising sealevels were the best indication of global warming… but now that this pillar has fallen out we are back to the same collapsed of argument of weather that refuses to cooperate being labeled “climate” or “global climate” and how this is still on track despite the lack of cooperation by Mr. Weather. The polar bears refuse to die. The walruses seem to find food. The icepacks are not melting outside of the Antarctic Peninsula… the Himalayan glaciers are still there and will be for quite some time. The food crisis is not happening in Africa or if it is it is less to do with global warming and more to do with desertification caused not by co2 but by humans increasing in numbers and putting greater pressure on the land in normal ways AND remember that the worst droughts were during the abnormally cold period of the mid 1970s not during the hot hot hot period of the 1990s. The dire forecasts are merely one set of variables of the IPCC bible. Over and over and over and over again the blowback is that the warmist movement is not based on reality but… the stigmata of the true believers continue to bleed…

5

[quote]"… the stigmata of the true believers continue to bleed…"[/quote]oh…quite nice that.

6

Is this the comedy forum?

7

[quote]Is this the comedy forum?
[/quote]

I suppose that is what one could call it. Unless, of course, you have a definitive rebuttal for Gray and Morner other than the usual calling them quacks, even though they have excellent credentials managing the very institutions that you turn to in order to keep the flame of global warming alarmism alive. Again, as Morner has stated, ON THE GROUND, we see no sealevel increases. These come only with the computer models that have proven to be so flawed in the past. But… the laughable moment is that like the Emperor in his new clothes, you continue to genuflect before the altar of right-thinking. Amuse yourself and in the process amuse us. One, however, cannot help but find the delusion somewhat disconcerting… like a homeless man who thinks that he is Jesus Christ or even worse Napoleon. I suggest to you that the Grand Army of Climate Change Alarmists is in full flight through the cold winter of Russia’s vast expanse. No doubt, though, it will make a beautiful painting of man’s prideful arrogance once again dashed against the hard rocks of reality.

PS: Read the most recent letter from NASA scientists, astronauts and administrators condemning the Hansen Hysteria while calling for Science with its rigor and methodology rather than computer models and their “weightings” to return to the fore? No? But I suppose all 47 are somehow in the clutches of greed-induced oil and gas industry largesse?

8

wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/09/k … t-sinking/

a more balanced look at the hoorah re the Pacific Islands and the rising sea levels.

Even conceding the political/economical ulterior motives of a few people, does not a whole theory of AGW invalidate. I see nowhere in the literature that rising sea levels (or lack thereof) is a necessary condition of the AGW theory. This is just like FS’ earlier arguments that if Al Gore is wrong, then the whole of AGW theory topples. haha, love your lack of logic, FS.

I would not be in the least surprised that there are unscrupulous people out there willing to capitalise on this idea. yes, we should be skeptical, and I am open to the possibility that AGW is wrong as a theory, but let’s keep things in proportion. This is like saying let’s give up the automobile, because we have some bad drivers on the road.

Note that the above article argues that the islands have grown because of coral debris and sediment. Does the computer model take this into account? Could that be why the model is flawed? Would that in itself invalidate AGW theory?

These are the better questions to ask, FS, not the tiresome rhetoric spouted by you and the really boring, repetitive, unimaginative, condescending TC.

9

Excellent credentials?

Is that the same Gray who has never had a climate-related paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? He does recognize the importance of peer review however, having had numerous articles on coal published in peer-reviewed journals. :ponder:

Is that the same Morner that believes in dowsing and water divination? :loco:

Are they the same sea level rises that are predicted out to the end of the century but that you expect to see now? :roflmao:

Give us one scientific report that has been published in the scientific literature to the same standards as the thousands of reports that discuss the science of climate change. Just one, that’s all I ask. Can you do that? Can you find one peer-reviewed paper that backs up your case and has thus-far held up to scientific scrutiny? Is that too much to ask?

10

Is it just my imagination or is CF Imagines congenitally incapable of addressing and refuting the argument made by Morner/Gray. If they are such idiots, doing so should be a piece of cake and then of course there are the conditions on the ground which don’t seem to be cooperating with the models but still page after page I have begged to see how their assertions are wrong and we get more of the same from CF Images… strange, eh?

[quote]a more balanced look at the hoorah re the Pacific Islands and the rising sea levels.

Even conceding the political/economical ulterior motives of a few people, does not a whole theory of AGW invalidate. I see nowhere in the literature that rising sea levels (or lack thereof) is a necessary condition of the AGW theory. This is just like FS’ earlier arguments that if Al Gore is wrong, then the whole of AGW theory topples. haha, love your lack of logic, FS.[/quote]

Really? What a backtrack… it was not I but others here who were constantly pointing to rising sealevels as proof, one which required urgent action. You pretend not to recall this? It is not I who started the sealevels rising scare… I merely am calling it out as alarmist and the response: Oh we never said it was urgent (despite all the discussion of the same because of melting ice in Greenland, Antarctica) and you expect me to go oh yeah you are right… I just thought that I would pick a random target that global warming alarmists have never raised to play strawman? really? that is the best that you can do? And then we have the CF Images argument of but the IPCC also included THAT scenario but is that low-ball one the one that we are greeted and treated to? NO. Back to you… but I guess the sealevels rising can now FIRMLY be removed from the global warming alarmist playbook as we all agree NO ONE ever said this was the SIGN that would PROVE global warming. Okay. Are we all done with this then? time to shelve the sealevels rising argument once and for all? I accept!

What are you talking about? Were you not one of the chief proponents of alarmism about global warming and the need to do something and then this half-assed suggestion/comparison?

Irrelevant to the argument. We are using altimeter readings which are not 100 percent but improving. Remove the two years of anomalies and the islands can be covered with five meters of bird shit for all I care. The point is that the sealevels are NOT rising.

Yes, I suppose he is boring and repetitive kinda like your parents when they said I told you so and you didn’t like it. Doesn’t make him or them any less right but how BORING of him to bring it up again and again when you have important concerns…

11

Care to reread the number of items in the IPCC report that were not peer-reviewed again? I will happily repost this. I can find the figures immediately. Strange that you still cannot refute Morner or Gray’s argument but continue to engage in ad hominem attacks. They have made assertions. Why cannot you prove them wrong?

Show how this is wrong or irrelevant to his dismissal of the computer models and current trends on the ground which are observable to all.

Sure sign that you are losing the argument… we are back, are we? to the climate vs. weather distinction. Strange how we see this whenever the variables on the ground do not line up with your predictions. Now, in YOUR IPCC report it shows a likely scenario and some other more drastic ones. I have said, I am fine with the LIKELY scenario on sealevel increases that your IPCC report showed. No need therefore for urgent action. I agree that they are reasonable and in 90 to 100 years, I can live with the sealevels that it is predicting. We AGREED upon that before did we not? I mean so hard to tell. How does one determine when and when not to use the alarmist IPCC predictions? Which have been predicated to a large extent on computer modeling which has proven so successful that it can accurately predict any number of weather and climate related trends, right? RIGHT? hahaha

So you cannot find anything to refute Morner and his views that sealevels are not rising? Gotcha. Are you saying Morner’s works have never been peer-reviewed? ARE YOU? Is it too much to ask that you can give us anything other than ad hominem attacks as to why Morner is wrong? and would you also like to go down the path of denying anyone who is not a climate scientist the ability to weigh in with their expertise in other areas like statistical modeling? ARE YOU SURE? I am happy to play this either way. You choose the parameters of the debate and then we will BOTH stick to them. Sound good? :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

12

Irrelevant to the argument. We are using altimeter readings which are not 100 percent but improving. Remove the two years of anomalies and the islands can be covered with five meters of bird shit for all I care. The point is that the sealevels are NOT rising.

Yes, I suppose he is boring and repetitive kinda like your parents when they said I told you so and you didn’t like it. Doesn’t make him or them any less right but how BORING of him to bring it up again and again when you have important concerns…[/quote]

christ on a pony, FS. you are annoying and rather bloaty with words or perhaps verbal diarrhea is a better description. My point, is that this whole issue with the atolls is irrelevant because of the following explanation, and read the link if you don’t believe me:

This from a guy who doesn’t believe increased Co2 increases sea levels based on the historical record, but who understands and studies atoll formation. Rather he identifies two other reasons for atoll preservation:

Meaning atolls have problems of conservation, but it’s a separate topic from AGW.

13

I dispute that the sealevels (post 1993) are rising. Whatever sediment is building up is irrelevant to proving the rise or fall of sealevels.

14

bingo… thanks for agreeing with me in your briefest statement ever.

15

No problem. Just call me daddy.

Now, clean your room or you cannot use the car this weekend.

16

bingo… thanks for agreeing with me in your briefest statement ever.[/quote]

I was partly being sarcastic. You seemed still to have not read the article. sea level rise can cause atoll formation by bringing coral rubble, etc. atoll destruction can be caused by wind erosion. that said, there are now man-made causes for the discouraging the former (by killing of fish) and enhancing the other (by using atoll rubble for construction). Hence, atoll formation by sediment can indicate sea level rising. but the other claim of atolls in Kiribati buried by the sea would seem to be wrong.

[quote]When the sea level rises, wind erosion decreases. The coral itself continues to grow upwards to match the sea level rise. Because the coral continues to flourish, the flow of sand and rubble onto the atoll continues, and with reduced wind erosion the atoll height increases by the amount of the sea level rise.

Since (as Darwin showed) atolls float up with the sea level, the idea that they will be buried by sea level rises is totally unfounded. Despite never being more than a few metres tall, hey have survived a sea level rise of up to three hundred plus feet (call it a hundred metres) within the last twenty thousand years. Historically they have floated up higher than the peaks of drowned mountains.[/quote]

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/

17

Since I posted the very same article myself, I would imagine that I was familiar with it. Wanna try again?

18

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Fred, as I mentioned in the previous discussion, if you’re going to argue this, at least do some research as to the basics of science, the purpose of IPCC, scientific method. I’ll add to that that you should also take the time to learn what weather is and what climate is.

It is now 2012. Sea level predictions are mostly for 2100, some for 2050. Why do you keep harping on about sea level rises now? And keep talking about people who seem to think we need to be seeing massive rises today to prove something? You say “you can live with it” but you don’t know what a 0.5m rise will actually mean for the world, do you? You say action is not urgent, completely overlooking the fact that it’s action now that will mitigate future consequences.

19

good for you. but your response suggests you did not understand. your turn.

For example, Impact of Artificial Reservoir Water Impoundment on Global Sea Level (Chao 2008), argues that water impoundment has increased since 1950 or something, and but for that, water levels would have risen even more, etc.

the altimeter measurements you cited, just so I can be on the same page as you, can you link me that data so I understand your position?

a quick google search comes up with the following: skepticalscience.com/Visual- … -Rise.html

with a short rebuttal of methodology:

20

[quote]Fred, as I mentioned in the previous discussion, if you’re going to argue this, at least do some research as to the basics of science, the purpose of IPCC, scientific method. I’ll add to that that you should also take the time to learn what weather is and what climate is.

It is now 2012. Sea level predictions are mostly for 2100, some for 2050. Why do you keep harping on about sea level rises now? And keep talking about people who seem to think we need to be seeing massive rises today to prove something? You say “you can live with it” but you don’t know what a 0.5m rise will actually mean for the world, do you? You say action is not urgent, completely overlooking the fact that it’s action now that will mitigate future consequences.[/quote]

so, your final word is that there are no sealevel increases NOW and therefore rather than refute Morner/Gray, you now agree with their assessments?

And in the likely scenario the rises are 0.3 to 0.5 are they not? so why focus on the 0.5? more alarmism even at the low end of the alarmism? and have we not faced similar increases and adapted?

Finally, what action do you propose taking to solve this possible problem? how much will it cost and please cite studies to show us where past similar efforts have led to any appreciable benefit. Thanks.