Ratcheting back the climate hysteria


Climate: it's just math.

If anybody cares to look in the NOAA database of historical temperatures you can plainly see it's not warming. Until you look you do not actually know. If anybody cares to look in the 2012 IPCC Final Report you'll see there are 75% error bars in the sole "proof" CO2 affects climate. Meanwhile, while 1/5 of the world freaks out about some non-existent "warming" (more people believe in angels) the rate of death from pollution increases every year. It's up to 7 million a year now, so from 2000, 140 million people have died from pollution you never mention, while zero have died from climate. Man's biggest problem ? Lying politicians and dying print and TV media that will now print anything for money.
#TheyLie


'As the situation degenerates, people have to be offered stupid amusements, more frequently, for them to ignore what's actually going on." - Dr. Jordon Peterson


earth

Metrics


no_consensus

Never mistake truth for consensus.

"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver

1) Never mistake consensus for truth. It took 300 years for "germ theory" to be accepted because the "scientific consensus" was tht "foul humors" caused disease. Consensus can be wrong. Also look at how it's measured and never mistake consensus for truth.

2) In the 2012 IPCC report, 75% error bars marred the proof CO2 affects climate

3) Because of this only 2.5% of the contributors signed off on it.

4) To correct this optics problem a grad student was commissioned and wrote Cook 2013 which showed 97% of scientists agree with the AGW theory.

5) Legates et. al. 2015 pointed out this 97% was actually only 75 out of 77 scientists - all of who were on climate grants. They also give a real % of world (not a cherry picked subset on grants) scientists who support the horribly flawed AGW hypothesis:. 0.3%.

Here's what an honest man looks like:

"“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said."

'I made a mistake' "As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.”

"He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

(Ref)


pollution

The real problem


rhetoric

Is not logic


space

The final frontier


"It is the scientific community’s responsibility to ensure that, where possible, scientific findings are portrayed to the public via mass media outlets in a correct and responsible manner to prevent the perpetuation of misleading or erroneous findings."
- Alan J. Jamieson, and Paul H. Yancey, "On the Validity of the Trieste Flatfish: Dispelling the Myth"

“Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best, he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear his shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.”
- Heinlein

That article you just read... did you understand why what they said is true? or did you take their word for it? How does it compare to what we actually know about the planet? Global warming hysteria takes focus away from pollution .

The fundamentals of life on this planet:

"“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said."

'I made a mistake'
"As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."
http://web.archive.org/web/20120425004724/http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

"Leading (emph mine - rjs) the fight against climate change."
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/annualreport_cf_2010.pdf
More like upcycling polluters dollars into fake news about the weather.

Environmental groups were warned that some climate change ads could be seen as partisan during election period
Elections Canada says warning covers activities, ads identifying a candidate or party that cost $500 or more
The Canadian Press · Posted: Aug 19, 2019
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-groups-warned-climate-change-real-partisan-1.5251763



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/0.0,0.0/land_ocean/ann/7/1981-2010