Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse gases; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[Ezra]

So mk do you have any data showing global warming?? From what I have read we have been in a normal heating cooling cycle that is dew to the number of sun spots. Other then A very slight elevated level compared to the limited data collected compaired to the earliest recorded data.
Also found that the data for temp on a global scale uses new locations for that global temp. Which changes the peramiters. If you factor out those new locations you find that recorded data and new data are almost identical in heating cooling trends caused by sun spots.

Also you might wanna look into haarp. H.a.a.r.p.

Here is an interview where the government admits to controlling the weather.


http://youtu.be/x2O-DVgcvWQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KMCopeland]

Ezra, you seem to feel that once something is peer-reviewed it can't ever be questioned/peer-reveiwed again. Peer review is constant. Ongoing. Flexible. And if there is a scientific principle that has been extensively peer-reviewed and is therefore accepted as the most current state of scientific knowledge, and good evidence is produced to contradict it, then THAT set of evidence is peer-reviewed. The process of peer review really isn't a very good boogey man to use to show that accepted scientific thought on climate change/global warming is somehow wrong. Believing it was peer reviewed by a bunch of corrupt peers, and their word was final, eternal, and inarguable, is a mistake. It doesn't work that way.

The very nature of peer review is they will examine all comers -- all theories. And the preponderance of peer-reviewed science currently supports the idea that this planet is in grave danger from climate change. If that notion is ever questioned with any real scientific authority, now or in the future, it will be peer-reviewed just like the original proposals were.

Peer review is our friend. Stubbornly insisting adequately peer-reviewed scientific conclusions must be wrong because Big Oil has hired enough PR firms to convince you it is -- is our enemy.

[Thinker]

KM,
Could you consider the possibity that those who support claims of global warming are falling for deception? The implications that we need to invest all kinds of money in "climate change" are based on ridiculous lies.

"This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion [now OVER $22,000,000,000!!] on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature. The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect. By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%." http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/tait-t ... -spending/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence." http://www.thegwpf.org/how-much-money-a ... ion-a-day/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There has and always will be climate change... "
•1880-1940: A prolonged rise in temperature in spite of modest global carbon dioxide outputs
•1940-1970: A decline in temperature, in spite of rising carbon dioxide levels
•1970-2000: A rise in temperature which follows carbon dioxide levels
•2009-2005: A levelling-out of the temperature rise
•2005-2011: A slight decline in temperature, in spite of still-rising carbon dioxide levels

So, over a period of more than a century, only the data from one thirty-year slot actually fits the human-induced global warming theory. The rest does not. In this situation it is up to the proponents of the theory to explain the discrepancy. With the bulk of the data not fitting the theory, this is indeed an onerous task."
http://ezinearticles.com/?Climate-Chang ... id=6849578" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ezra]

Ezra, you seem to feel that once something is peer-reviewed it can't ever be questioned/peer-reveiwed again. Peer review is constant. Ongoing. Flexible. And if there is a scientific principle that has been extensively peer-reviewed and is therefore accepted as the most current state of scientific knowledge, and good evidence is produced to contradict it, then THAT set of evidence is peer-reviewed. The process of peer review really isn't a very good boogey man to use to show that accepted scientific thought on climate change/global warming is somehow wrong. Believing it was peer reviewed by a bunch of corrupt peers, and their word was final, eternal, and inarguable, is a mistake. It doesn't work that way.

The very nature of peer review is they will examine all comers -- all theories. And the preponderance of peer-reviewed science currently supports the idea that this planet is in grave danger from climate change. If that notion is ever questioned with any real scientific authority, now or in the future, it will be peer-reviewed just like the original proposals were.

Peer review is our friend. Stubbornly insisting adequately peer-reviewed scientific conclusions must be wrong because Big Oil has hired enough PR firms to convince you it is -- is our enemy.

Wow thanks for the good laugh. I really needed that.

My research on peer review has had absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It's been on history. Carbon dating bones and wood. People find evedence quite often the really rattles the cage of history and it's shot down because the of the way those so called peers belive.

Do you honestly think that truth and fact needs a filter?

For example. Someone finds and artifact in a Native American historical site. Buried under the level of the Native American artifacts. Which cabin dating proves came from befor the native Americans. The origin of the artifact is Asian.
That's the facts.
That person who found this has to submit the facts to a peer review. They don't accept it. Cuz everybody knows that no Asians lived here befor the native Americans.
And there you have it. That peice of info dosent make it into history if that individual dosent persue it anymore.
But the fact is it was there. Somehow it got there and it got there befor the native Americans did.

Peer review is our freind. Ha. It about control.
I'm sure you will come up with some explanation for how peer reviews are good in some cases. Bla bla bla.
I want truth I want facts. And I don't want a filter on it.

[LoveIsTruth]

Okay LoveIsTruth, I get it. You're on a crusade to convince the world that global warming is a hoax.

Human-made global warming proof is a hoax. No proof, no law (force) can be used. That is the point.

As for clean energy, the same people who push the "green" garbage fraud, also suppress clean, free energy. It is all a fraud, from beginning to end. People need to learn the facts, because they are being manipulated, because of their ignorance.

[LoveIsTruth]

Brilliant, Ezra!

And Thinker, great quotes! Thanks.

[KMCopeland]

KM, Could you consider the possibity that those who support claims of global warming are falling for deception?

I could absolutely accept that possibility. Which is why ongoing peer review is crucial.

The implications that we need to invest all kinds of money in "climate change" are based on ridiculous lies.

I don't think that's the case. I don't think the amount of money it will take to address this is very large either. But since I'm not a scientist, I defer to the consensus opinion of people who are. And that consensus opinion is that we really better do something. Real soon.


One thing you never want to do is listen to the arguments of someone who has something to lose or gain by some government action, or by government inaction. If you take the time to get down to the nitty gritty of who is spending gargantuan amounts of money opposing those of us who desperately want to do something constructive about this, you will see the fingerprints of moneyed oil interests all over it. That alone ought to make you extremely skeptical of their claims that the overwhelming consensus of credentialed scientists is nothing but a pack of lies. Cui bono is the question to ask: "Who benefits?" Always. Always ask that. And the answer to this one is gazillionnaire oil people are the ones who stand to benefit from you refusing to hear the voices of reason. Stop helping them. They don't need your help smearing filthy tar sands oil and all other kinds of grimy, smelly, nasty petroleum products all over the face of the planet and making your air unfit to breathe and making your tap water catch fire. They're doing a bang up job of it without your help. Help the little guy for once. It's kind of important.

If you insist on polluting your mind with the utter nonsense you find on places like FrontPageMag.com, the least you can do, for yourself if not for anybody else, is examine the opposing viewpoint. I promise you you won't regret it. Search terms like "Who's really lying about climate change?" will make for a good beginning.

[Thinker]

KM,
I appreciate your reply except you didn't address the huge elephant in the room... How are we so many billions of dollars better off for having spent it on "weather change"? Why is it the claims of human-caused global warming historically prove to be false? Maybe you have no answer to this, and if that is the case, maybe it would be best if you didn't support "climate change" without more understanding.

I agree with you that money is often behind government decisions and we need to each do what we can to conserve energy and replenish this earth. We recycle and try to limit and make most use of energy. I'm sure there's more to be done - but I have yet to see anywhere in the neighborhood of $22,000,000,000 worth of it accomplished.

[mhewett]

In my country, which produces about 1.5% of the total global emissions, a climate scientist worked out how much of a difference it would make if the rest of the world does not act but we cut emissions until 2020 and then did nothing else, out of a total global increase of 4.7674 degrees (who knows what computer model he was using) our contribution from my country would cut world temperatures by 0.0038 degrees by 2100. That's 38/1000ths of 1 degree for all of the billions of dollars that they want us to spend. Sound like a good deal? And that's if this climate scientist is correct! They haven't been so far. Almost all of their predictions have been wrong. And Obama says this 2014 was the hottest? What a load of doggie doo doo.

What they often fail to mention is that when climate recors began, at least for us, we were just coming out of what was called the 'little ice age'. Where did they expect temperatures to go? In the 70's it was global cooling, now global warming. These guys are full of it.

A couple of years ago I checked out the supposed 97% global warming consensus of scientists claim. It turned out that a survey was sent to about 10000 scientists. Of those, about 3500 decided to answer the survey. Out of those I seem to recall about 80% thought man had something to do with global temperatures rising. But anyway, that was not high enough so they then concentrated on the climate scientists, I guess the ones that go to uni and are taught the same things to reach the same conclusions. There were 79 of them. Out of those, 77 believed that man had something to do with climate change, hence, 97%. Then in the press it became 97% of scientists when it was actually 77 scientists out of a group of 79. It is a totally deceptive industry and the peer review process became flawed because those scientists who disagreed were shut out.

[KMCopeland]

KM,I appreciate your reply except you didn't address the huge elephant in the room... How are we so many billions of dollars better off for having spent it on "weather change"?

I'm not sure how to answer this. I'm not familiar with the specific things you say we spent billions of dollars on so far. Tell me what they are, and I'll take it from there.

Why is it the claims of human-caused global warming historically prove to be false?

Tell me which claims you mean.

[Thinker]

KM,
I figured you couldn't answer those questions.

It blows my mind how anyone can support something that they know so little about!

[LoveIsTruth]

Brilliant! Good one!

Thinker, KM sounds like a paid troll who gets paid per post.

[KMCopeland]

KM,
I figured you couldn't answer those questions.

It blows my mind how anyone can support something that they know so little about!

So you can't tell me anything about the billions of dollars you claim we've spent so I can answer your questions about them, and you can't tell me what claims you say are false so I can respond to that charge -- and you think I'm dodging your questions.

Sort of speaks for itself.

[KMCopeland]

Brilliant! Good one!

Thinker, KM sounds like a paid troll who gets paid per post.

Ugh.

[Army Of Truth]

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/compone ... fraud.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Environmentalism has been politically linked to alternative medicine for many years, due to the unfortunate pervasive presence of the paganistic religions. It is truly a tragic situation that has impeded alternative medicine in the U.S. perhaps as much as any other factor.

At The Health Wyze Report, we believe that reducing human harm to the planet is a reasonable goal, so long as it is not given precedence over the rights and livelihoods of people. Increasingly, environmentalists and politicians have exploited the shoddy global warming hypothesis as a method to take away the rights of the people in a draconian manner, and to tax all of us exorbitantly.

In the past few years, there has been massive growth in the amount of people who believe that man is the primary cause of global warming, and that ironically, an ice age is somehow coming. It really is incredible when one steps back to examine the ridiculousness of it all. The theory of man-made global warming has actually been widely accepted by society. The power elites have told us that the world will come to an end if we do not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and lower our output of carbon dioxide (CO2). Dissenting scientists have been silenced, even as they explained that most CO2 is emitted from the oceans, and that CO2 does not lead to any increases in temperatures. In fact, the reverse is true. The warming of the earth (due to solar cycles) leads to increases in CO2.

Now, 30,000 scientists, including the founder of The Weather Channel, have come forward to sue Al Gore for fraud. Al Gore has made massive profits in the promotion of the global warming mythology, and he played a key role in getting the 'Cap and Trade' legislation passed. Perhaps this lawsuit will finally give the thousands of 'dissenting' scientists a voice again

=)) =)) =))

[Army Of Truth]

KM,I appreciate your reply except you didn't address the huge elephant in the room... How are we so many billions of dollars better off for having spent it on "weather change"?

I'm not sure how to answer this. I'm not familiar with the specific things you say we spent billions of dollars on so far. Tell me what they are, and I'll take it from there.

Why is it the claims of human-caused global warming historically prove to be false?

Tell me which claims you mean.

How about $120 Billion in the past 5 years for starters?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mel ... buy-1400-f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama Wasted $120 Billion on Global Warming

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday at a hearing on the Defense Department’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget that President Barack Obama has wasted $120 billion on global warming over the past five years – money that would be better spent on the military.

“I've been working on this for quite some time ... In the last five years, between 2009 and 2014, the president has spent $120 billion on the environmental agenda, mostly global warming, climate and that type of thing,” said Inhofe. “And in that respect, if you'll just take the amount that was not authorized by Congress -- and I'm talking about the environmental agenda, you could actually buy 1,400 F-35s.”

[KMCopeland]

The power elites have told us that the world will come to an end if we do not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and lower our output of carbon dioxide (CO2).

See, it's the power elite that's telling you that global warming is a hoax. They're the ones spending all the money to discredit it. They hate it. If we listen to state of the art scientific consensus and do something, their petroleum-fueled gravy train will come to a screeching halt. They don't want us to listen. They have a lot to lose if we listen. So they are who's funding all the global warming denial organizations, and movements, and spokesmen. It's a testament to their effectiveness that you think the people who are telling you the truth are lying.


It takes a little digging. But you can find out who's really behind the push to discredit climate change science. If you really want to know.

And Al Gore is no power elite. He's the one they targeted first. With impressive results.

It's depressing.

[Army Of Truth]

The power elites have told us that the world will come to an end if we do not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and lower our output of carbon dioxide (CO2).

See, it's the power elite that's telling you that global warming is a hoax. They're the ones spending all the money to discredit it. They hate it. If we listen to state of the art scientific consensus and do something, their petroleum-fueled gravy train will come to a screeching halt. They don't want us to listen. They have a lot to lose if we listen. So they are who's funding all the global warming denial organizations, and movements, and spokesmen. It's a testament to their effectiveness that you think the people who are telling you the truth are lying.


It takes a little digging. But you can find out who's really behind the push to discredit climate change science. If you really want to know.

And Al Gore is no power elite. He's the one they targeted first. With impressive results.

It's depressing.

Actually, the power elites are telling us that global warming is real! That is why they want people to lower their carbon output.

[LoveIsTruth]

See, it's the power elite that's telling you that global warming is a hoax. They're the ones spending all the money to discredit it.

This is completely asinine! The "elites" are the world banksters who originated and fully support and promote the "green" human-made-CO2-causes-global-warming fraud. These banks are slated to trade and give out "carbon credit" garbage. You are a liar or a fool. But I don't think you are a fool, except that you are choosing to lie.

[LoveIsTruth]

Brilliant quotes AOT. Thanks!

[samizdat]

The power elites have told us that the world will come to an end if we do not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and lower our output of carbon dioxide (CO2).

See, it's the power elite that's telling you that global warming is a hoax. They're the ones spending all the money to discredit it. They hate it. If we listen to state of the art scientific consensus and do something, their petroleum-fueled gravy train will come to a screeching halt. They don't want us to listen. They have a lot to lose if we listen. So they are who's funding all the global warming denial organizations, and movements, and spokesmen. It's a testament to their effectiveness that you think the people who are telling you the truth are lying.


It takes a little digging. But you can find out who's really behind the push to discredit climate change science. If you really want to know.

And Al Gore is no power elite. He's the one they targeted first. With impressive results.

It's depressing.

Actually, the power elites are telling us that global warming is real! That is why they want people to lower their carbon output.

While they use their corporate jets to fly halfway around the world to a non descript town in Switzerland to discuss...this very thing!

Hypocrites!

[KMCopeland]

The power elites have told us that the world will come to an end if we do not reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, and lower our output of carbon dioxide (CO2).

See, it's the power elite that's telling you that global warming is a hoax. They're the ones spending all the money to discredit it. They hate it. If we listen to state of the art scientific consensus and do something, their petroleum-fueled gravy train will come to a screeching halt. They don't want us to listen. They have a lot to lose if we listen. So they are who's funding all the global warming denial organizations, and movements, and spokesmen. It's a testament to their effectiveness that you think the people who are telling you the truth are lying.


It takes a little digging. But you can find out who's really behind the push to discredit climate change science. If you really want to know.

And Al Gore is no power elite. He's the one they targeted first. With impressive results.

It's depressing.

Actually, the power elites are telling us that global warming is real! That is why they want people to lower their carbon output.

I guess we just have a real different concept of who the power elites are.

[KMCopeland]

KM,I appreciate your reply except you didn't address the huge elephant in the room... How are we so many billions of dollars better off for having spent it on "weather change"?

I'm not sure how to answer this. I'm not familiar with the specific things you say we spent billions of dollars on so far. Tell me what they are, and I'll take it from there.

Why is it the claims of human-caused global warming historically prove to be false?

Tell me which claims you mean.

How about $120 Billion in the past 5 years for starters?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mel ... buy-1400-f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama Wasted $120 Billion on Global Warming

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday at a hearing on the Defense Department’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget that President Barack Obama has wasted $120 billion on global warming over the past five years – money that would be better spent on the military.

“I've been working on this for quite some time ... In the last five years, between 2009 and 2014, the president has spent $120 billion on the environmental agenda, mostly global warming, climate and that type of thing,” said Inhofe. “And in that respect, if you'll just take the amount that was not authorized by Congress -- and I'm talking about the environmental agenda, you could actually buy 1,400 F-35s.”

James Imhofe is the wrong guy to quote on this, but even if he weren't, all he did was pull a figure out of his hat, and then claim Obama spent it. It tells us nothing about how it got spent. It's the same thing as Thinker did -- throwing out a number and hoping it sticks to the wall.

[LoveIsTruth]

Man-made Global Warming is Fraud

By Walter E. Williams

March 10, 2015




“But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,” said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change. GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: “Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system.” That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth’s existence.

You say, “Williams, that’s not what the warmers are talking about. It’s the high CO2 levels caused by mankind’s industrial activities that are causing the climate change!” There’s a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, “no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth’s temperature has not budged for 18 years.”

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let’s look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct.”

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task” they have ever given themselves, “which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model.” In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer’s views this way: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. … The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it’s settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.

The Best of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.

[LoveIsTruth]