More Evidence Against the Carbon Dioxide Scam

[joeblast]

What else am I supposed to say when I make a point and it zips overhead like a satellite? You consistently avoid addressing issues and 99% of the time simply attack the messenger - nevermind the point being made, let's see if we can find some dirt on the originator and we'll attempt to use that to discredit the source, if that is successfully done then the substantive point doesnt need to be addressed! This is your #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 tactic. Avoid substance at all costs...it got old quite a long time ago.

 

 

So you entirely miss that this sums up the efforts of the AGW CO2 crowd:

 

The most serious aspect of this policy is that it tends to perpetuate basic errors when they are once made. Inevitably the theorists will take a wrong turn sooner or later, and present practice sets up an almost impassible roadblock in the way of getting back on the right track. This situation is greatly aggravated by what some observers have called the “epicyclical” character of much of present-day physical theory. When a theory encounters difficulties of a serious nature, it is no longer fashionable to abandon it, as would have been done in an earlier era. The present practice is to “save” the theory by adding the equivalent of one of the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy. Then when further trouble develops another epicycle is added, and so on. Each addition not only buries the errors of the original theory that much deeper and makes them that much harder to deal with, but also puts the originator of a new and better theory in a position where he cannot isolate the primary issue and meet it squarely; he must contend with all of the epicycles at the same time, however irrelevant they may actually be.

 

So the fact that this guy had some misconceptions about the atom is rather immaterial in this context and it in no way has any bearing on the fact that "climate scientists" are quite guilty of this.

 

I made a similar comment to someone else before and noted that we dont even have a model for the jetstream or a reliable ENSO model - the guy's retort? hah, ENSO is far too chaotic and complex! But then didnt consider that in "singling out the co2 sensitivity" they took things like ENSO, the solar cycle, volcanism to be rather "known signals" and were confident that what was removed, attributed to those signals was necessarily correct.

 

So if you cant really explain a signal - how can you reliably account for the effects when attempting to remove said signal from an analysis?

 

Yet again I'm pointing out substantial unknowns that point out you cant with any degree of confidence say that CO2 has any sort of net positive feedback on the climate system.

 

/waits for you to ignore the entire substance of this post also

 

I suppose that's to be expected though, you have an untenable position and when backed up against a wall you have no other recourse but to shoot the messenger.

[ralis]

What else am I supposed to say when I make a point and it zips overhead like a satellite? You consistently avoid addressing issues and 99% of the time simply attack the messenger - nevermind the point being made, let's see if we can find some dirt on the originator and we'll attempt to use that to discredit the source, if that is successfully done then the substantive point doesnt need to be addressed! This is your #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 tactic. Avoid substance at all costs...it got old quite a long time ago.

 

 

So you entirely miss that this sums up the efforts of the AGW CO2 crowd:

 

 

 

So the fact that this guy had some misconceptions about the atom is rather immaterial in this context and it in no way has any bearing on the fact that "climate scientists" are quite guilty of this.

 

I made a similar comment to someone else before and noted that we dont even have a model for the jetstream or a reliable ENSO model - the guy's retort? hah, ENSO is far too chaotic and complex! But then didnt consider that in "singling out the co2 sensitivity" they took things like ENSO, the solar cycle, volcanism to be rather "known signals" and were confident that what was removed, attributed to those signals was necessarily correct.

 

So if you cant really explain a signal - how can you reliably account for the effects when attempting to remove said signal from an analysis?

 

Yet again I'm pointing out substantial unknowns that point out you cant with any degree of confidence say that CO2 has any sort of net positive feedback on the climate system.

 

/waits for you to ignore the entire substance of this post also

 

I suppose that's to be expected though, you have an untenable position and when backed up against a wall you have no other recourse but to shoot the messenger.

 

Your points don't zip overhead. The problem is that all your so called revelations have already been addressed by the 97% of climate scientists. You have offered no substantive evidence refuting AGW.

[voidisyinyang]

Abstract

To unmask the anthropogenic global warming trend imbedded in the climate data, multiple linear regression analysis is often employed to filter out short-term fluctuations caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), volcano aerosols, and solar forcing. These fluctuations are unimportant as far as their impact on the deduced multidecadal anthropogenic trends is concerned: ENSO and volcano aerosols have very little multidecadal trend. Solar variations do have a secular trend, but it is very small and uncertain. What is important, but is left out of all multiple regression analysis of global warming so far, is a long-period oscillation called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). When the AMO index is included as a regressor (i.e., explanatory variable), the deduced multidecadal anthropogenic global warming trend is so impacted that previously deduced anthropogenic warming rates need to be substantially revised. The deduced net anthropogenic global warming trend has been remarkably steady and statistically significant for the past 100 yr.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0208.1?journalCode=atsc

 

Zhou, Jiansong, Ka-Kit Tung, 2013: Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis. J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 3–8.

Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis

Jiansong Zhou and Ka-Kit Tung

Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/opinion/global/brian-fagan-the-impending-deluge.html?src=rechp

 

May 31, 2013

The Impending Deluge By BRIAN FAGAN

[joeblast]

To unmask the anthropogenic global warming trend imbedded in the climate data, multiple linear regression analysis is often employed to filter out short-term fluctuations caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), volcano aerosols, and solar forcing. These fluctuations are unimportant as far as their impact on the deduced multidecadal anthropogenic trends is concerned: ENSO and volcano aerosols have very little multidecadal trend. Solar variations do have a secular trend, but it is very small and uncertain. What is important, but is left out of all multiple regression analysis of global warming so far, is a long-period oscillation called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO). When the AMO index is included as a regressor (i.e., explanatory variable), the deduced multidecadal anthropogenic global warming trend is so impacted that previously deduced anthropogenic warming rates need to be substantially revised. The deduced net anthropogenic global warming trend has been remarkably steady and statistically significant for the past 100 yr.

 

I find this abstract to be pure hubris. One can basically equate "the deduced multidecadal anthropogenic trend" to "here be dragons" in the seafaring maps of old. Of course the actual paper is paywalled.

[ralis]

I find this abstract to be pure hubris. One can basically equate "the deduced multidecadal anthropogenic trend" to "here be dragons" in the seafaring maps of old. Of course the actual paper is paywalled.

 

I would suggest that understanding peer review would be appropriate. Peer review is in the realm of 'we' as opposed to the libertarian view of 'me'. Anyone can attempt to write papers that seem to have credibility with the stated objective of purveying some sort of absolute truth which in the writers mind should go unchallenged. Working with one's peers in a group is the real challenge. That is why i challenge all the papers that you post here.

[joeblast]

do I have to go dig up all of the bastardizations of the peer-pal review process that was usurped by the carbon dioxide orthodoxy?

 

do I have to dig up the myriad ways just the verbiage was utilized to get government funding, and the resultant levels of approval just from mentioning "global warming??

 

do I have to put up all the ways they hid their methodology, all the maneuvers they pulled to get around FOIA requests, since many of the institutes were publicly funded and subject to open review of their work? do I have to present the evidence of opposing ideas being crowded out, emails sent around to deny review and publication to papers that did not conclude CO2 was a problem wrt/ the climate?

 

Penn State gave Michael Mann the same treatment they gave to Jerry Sandusky - "thanks for all the money you've brought in, now we're just going to declare we found nothing remiss so long as you stop doing this and stay relatively quiet"

 

or all the other climategate stuff - oh, just innocuous little files...nevermind those mentions of "hey, I've deleted all of my conversations regarding X, I'd like to have you and him and him do the same and delete that chain of correspondence"

 

nope, nobody's hiding anything there!

 

the behavior of the AGW orthodoxy has been nothing short of scandalous and reminiscent of attempts to put down galileo - good thing heretics dont get the death penalty these days!

[joeblast]

if they had truth on their side, such suppression would in no way be necessary - they'd be saying "we're quite confident our results are correct, now here's how we got our answers, here's our results so that you may duplicate them and go ahead, TRY to find some errors!"

 

nope, its

 

"hide the black boxes! they're coming to look at our records!!!!"

 

pretty laughable, if you ask me. it betrays the core of no confidence.

[eye_of_the_storm]

Note: only quick browse through the thread... below covers a few topics but ultimately shows carbon hoax and who is going to cash in $$

An old assignment...

///

"The power to question is the basis of all human progress."
Indira Ghandi

Have we forgotten to question?

Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations and 49 are countries.

compiled by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the of the Institute for Policy Studies in their Report on the Top 200 corporations released in December 2000

“Monsanto (Corp) is an agricultural company. We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more. We help farmers grow yield sustainably so they can be successful, produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fiber, while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment.”

!!!

> Monsanto was involved in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the first nuclear bomb
> Monsanto also developed AGENT ORANGE

 

The United States military sprayed 50,000,000 l of the chemical in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia ( Operation Ranch Hand)

 

TOTAL ARROGANCE AND DISREGARD FOR LIFE and these people now manage our food ?

"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University

> Aspartame 951! (Artificial GM sweetener) in over 9000s products... is a deadly neurotoxin..yum
> Fluoride?

>Bovine Growth Hormone

>Water privatization
>Biopiracy
> Untested / Unlabeled genetically engineered organisms
...the list goes on

“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. ... I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” - John lennon ...

MONSANTO VS The People of Germany

 

“A German court on Thursday rejected a bid by Monsanto Co. to have a government ban of its genetically engineered MON810 corn suspended. Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner banned the sale and planting of the corn last month, citing studies that she said show it poses a danger to the environment.”

 

Accountability?

 

A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job. [1] Michael Pollan, "Playing God in the Garden," NEW YORK TIMES October 25, 1998, pgs. 44-51, 62-63, 82, 92-93.

 

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS?

Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) and the Supreme Court.

Notable Former employees

Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office,Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.

The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.

The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.

 

The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

 

The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)

Democracy doesn’t exist, it’s just a front

 

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (George Orwell, 1984)

 

>> THE UNITED STATES of...

 

"Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve - in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend THE FEDERAL United States CORPORATION all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt.

 

"The greatest prison is the illusion of freedom"

 

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-eight-families/25080

JP Morgan Chase's own website pronounces the banking institution to be "...built on the foundation of more than 1,200 predecessor companies that have come together over the years to form today's company."

Of those 1,200 companies Monsanto is just one...

 

SUPPRESSION OF TECHNOLOGY

J.P. Morgan is a leader in financial services, offering solutions to clients in more than 100 countries with one of the most comprehensive global product platforms available. We have been helping our clients to do business and manage their wealth for more than 200 years. Our business has been built upon our core principle of putting our clients' interests first.

J.P. Morgan is part of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), a global financial services firm with assets of $2.2 trillion.

In the 1900s JP Morgan helped finance genius inventor Nikola Tesla (considered the father of our modern technological age) and his Wardnclyffe Tower for experiments in transmitting energy. Morgan was unaware at the time that Telsa was experimenting with an infinite source of energy he referred to as Radiant Energy. This energy had absolutely no environmental impacts and could be transmitted wirelessly to the entire world...for free. When Morgan realised he couldn’t profit from it and that it would make his other investments redundant he pulled funding, soon after Teslas’ Laboratory burnt to the ground (suspected arson) and the Wardenclyffe tower was destroyed (1917). Tesla was ruined, though he persevered and continued to develop his ideas for the betterment of humanity.

 

“Two days after Tesla's death (in 1943 at the age of 86), representatives of the Office of Alien Property went to his room at the New Yorker Hotel and seized all his possessions. P. E. Foxworth, assistant director of the New York FBI office, was called in to investigate. According to Foxworth, the government was "vitally interested" in preserving Tesla's papers.”

 

Of related interest >> J.P Morgan and the Sinking of the Titanic
>> Insider trading and 9/11

 

WHATS ALL THIS GOT TO DO WITH CARBON?

 

J.P. Morgan has taken a leadership role in addressing the challenges and opportunities of a carbon-constrained environment. In December 2007, the firm helped found the New York Mercantile Exchange’s Green Exchange. The exchange offers a range of environmental futures, options and swap contracts for markets focused on solutions to climate change, renewable energy and other environmental challenges.

LOL!!!

 

JP Morgan European Equity Research has released a report in which they have raised their 2008-2012 CO2 price forecast from €20/t to €25/t, and introduced a post-2012 forecast of €30/t.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

By Denis G. Rancourt

In all of human history, what was believed and promoted by the majority of service intellectuals (high priests) in each civilization was only created and maintained to support the hierarchy and the place of the high priests within the hierarchy. To believe that the present is any different regarding any issue managed by our “experts”, whether in medicine, psychology, cosmology, economics, law and governance, population health or ecology, is pure distilled idiocy.

Never mind that the whole climate change scam is now driven by the top-level financiers newly eyeing a multi-trillion-dollar paper economy of carbon trading and that this is the reason it’s now a dominant mainstream media and corporate messaging presence [1].

Never mind that this paper economy of carbon trading will be the largest financial extortion enterprise since the invention of the US-centered military-backed global finance structure of predation itself.

Never mind that establishment scientists are service intellectuals who virtually never diverge from supporting power, who at best look for sanitized and hypothetical “problems” that do not threaten hierarchy and who feed their false self-image of relevance...and so on

 

THE REAL INCONVEINENT TRUTH

 

Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory.

Note

> IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) MISCONDUCT + FRAUD...

 

PROOF THAT THEY REALLY CARE

Violence begets Violence, but it’s good for business...

 

“Since corrupt people unite amongst themselves to constitute a force, then honest people must do the same " Count Leo N. Tolstoy

Edited June 4, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

Note: only quick browse through the thread... below covers a few topics but ultimately shows carbon hoax and who is going to cash in $$

 

An old assignment...

 

///

 

"The power to question is the basis of all human progress."

Indira Ghandi

 

Have we forgotten to question?

 

Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations and 49 are countries.

compiled by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the of the Institute for Policy Studies in their Report on the Top 200 corporations released in December 2000

 

“Monsanto (Corp) is an agricultural company. We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more. We help farmers grow yield sustainably so they can be successful, produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fiber, while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment.”

!!!

 

> Monsanto was involved in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the first nuclear bomb

> Monsanto also developed AGENT ORANGE

 

The United States military sprayed 50,000,000 l of the chemical in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia ( Operation Ranch Hand)

 

TOTAL ARROGANCE AND DISREGARD FOR LIFE and these people now manage our food ?

 

"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University

 

> Aspartame 951! (Artificial GM sweetener) in over 9000s products... is a deadly neurotoxin..yum

> Fluoride?

>Bovine Growth Hormone

>Water privatization

>Biopiracy

> Untested / Unlabeled genetically engineered organisms

...the list goes on

 

“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. ... I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” - John lennon ...

 

MONSANTO VS The People of Germany

 

“A German court on Thursday rejected a bid by Monsanto Co. to have a government ban of its genetically engineered MON810 corn suspended. Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner banned the sale and planting of the corn last month, citing studies that she said show it poses a danger to the environment.”

 

Accountability?

 

A Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job. [1] Michael Pollan, "Playing God in the Garden," NEW YORK TIMES October 25, 1998, pgs. 44-51, 62-63, 82, 92-93.

 

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS?

 

Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) and the Supreme Court.

 

Notable Former employees

 

Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office,Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.

 

The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation.

 

The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.

 

The U.S. Secretary of Health, Tommy Thompson, received $50,000 in donations from Monsanto during his winning campaign for Wisconsin's governor.

 

The two congressmen receiving the most donations from Monsanto during the last election were Larry Combest (Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee) and Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Source: Dairy Education Board)

 

Democracy doesn’t exist, it’s just a front

 

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (George Orwell, 1984)

 

>> THE UNITED STATES of...

 

"Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve - in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

 

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend THE FEDERAL United States CORPORATION all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt.

 

"The greatest prison is the illusion of freedom"

 

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks?

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-eight-families/25080

 

JP Morgan Chase's own website pronounces the banking institution to be "...built on the foundation of more than 1,200 predecessor companies that have come together over the years to form today's company."

 

Of those 1,200 companies Monsanto is just one...

 

SUPPRESSION OF TECHNOLOGY

 

J.P. Morgan is a leader in financial services, offering solutions to clients in more than 100 countries with one of the most comprehensive global product platforms available. We have been helping our clients to do business and manage their wealth for more than 200 years. Our business has been built upon our core principle of putting our clients' interests first.

 

J.P. Morgan is part of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), a global financial services firm with assets of $2.2 trillion.

 

In the 1900s JP Morgan helped finance genius inventor Nikola Tesla (considered the father of our modern technological age) and his Wardnclyffe Tower for experiments in transmitting energy. Morgan was unaware at the time that Telsa was experimenting with an infinite source of energy he referred to as Radiant Energy. This energy had absolutely no environmental impacts and could be transmitted wirelessly to the entire world...for free. When Morgan realised he couldn’t profit from it and that it would make his other investments redundant he pulled funding, soon after Teslas’ Laboratory burnt to the ground (suspected arson) and the Wardenclyffe tower was destroyed (1917). Tesla was ruined, though he persevered and continued to develop his ideas for the betterment of humanity.

 

“Two days after Tesla's death (in 1943 at the age of 86), representatives of the Office of Alien Property went to his room at the New Yorker Hotel and seized all his possessions. P. E. Foxworth, assistant director of the New York FBI office, was called in to investigate. According to Foxworth, the government was "vitally interested" in preserving Tesla's papers.”

 

Of related interest >> J.P Morgan and the Sinking of the Titanic

>> Insider trading and 9/11

 

WHATS ALL THIS GOT TO DO WITH CARBON?

 

J.P. Morgan has taken a leadership role in addressing the challenges and opportunities of a carbon-constrained environment. In December 2007, the firm helped found the New York Mercantile Exchange’s Green Exchange. The exchange offers a range of environmental futures, options and swap contracts for markets focused on solutions to climate change, renewable energy and other environmental challenges.

 

LOL!!!

 

JP Morgan European Equity Research has released a report in which they have raised their 2008-2012 CO2 price forecast from €20/t to €25/t, and introduced a post-2012 forecast of €30/t.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

By Denis G. Rancourt

 

In all of human history, what was believed and promoted by the majority of service intellectuals (high priests) in each civilization was only created and maintained to support the hierarchy and the place of the high priests within the hierarchy. To believe that the present is any different regarding any issue managed by our “experts”, whether in medicine, psychology, cosmology, economics, law and governance, population health or ecology, is pure distilled idiocy.

 

Never mind that the whole climate change scam is now driven by the top-level financiers newly eyeing a multi-trillion-dollar paper economy of carbon trading and that this is the reason it’s now a dominant mainstream media and corporate messaging presence [1].

 

Never mind that this paper economy of carbon trading will be the largest financial extortion enterprise since the invention of the US-centered military-backed global finance structure of predation itself.

 

Never mind that establishment scientists are service intellectuals who virtually never diverge from supporting power, who at best look for sanitized and hypothetical “problems” that do not threaten hierarchy and who feed their false self-image of relevance...and so on

 

THE REAL INCONVEINENT TRUTH

 

Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

 

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory.

Note

 

> IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) MISCONDUCT + FRAUD...

 

PROOF THAT THEY REALLY CARE

 

 

Violence begets Violence, but it’s good for business...

 

“Since corrupt people unite amongst themselves to constitute a force, then honest people must do the same " Count Leo N. Tolstoy

 

Refutation of Dr. Gerlich's assertions on AGW. He has no peer reviewed papers. Have fun with the German!

 

http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324v1.pdf

 

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/formal-reply-to-gerlich-and-tscheuner.html

 

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html

Edited June 4, 2013 by ralis

[eye_of_the_storm]

A serious question to Ralis... are you a government shill?

[ralis]

the behavior of the AGW orthodoxy has been nothing short of scandalous and reminiscent of attempts to put down galileo - good thing heretics dont get the death penalty these days!

 

You are comparing yourself to Galileo? You must have a persecution complex. Most outrageous statement I have seen on this site.

[ralis]

A serious question to Ralis... are you a government shill?

 

 

No. I have have feet firmly grounded in science, whereas the denial crowd does not. Not one of you here understand the science let alone the math to even begin to understand AGW. Stop pretending that any of you know something!

[eye_of_the_storm]

hahaha. ok.

Edited June 4, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[joeblast]

 

 

Refutation of Dr. Gerlich's assertions on AGW. He has no peer reviewed papers. Have fun with the German!

 

http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324v1.pdf

 

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/formal-reply-to-gerlich-and-tscheuner.html

 

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html

Correlation is not congruence - a greenhouse relies on the isolation of one air system from another, lest convection well overcome the system. That is the established definition before somebody had the bright idea to get inventive. So basically via "common usage" the definition of the greenhouse effect has become bastardized like a great many other inconvenient things that get addressed by simply changing verbiage around.

 

To use "greenhouse effect" is to assert primacy where other mechanisms are dominant - and that is the issue with saying we have a "greenhouse effect" problem here. In effect, the "greenhouse effect" = AGW/CO2, and it is a misnomer. The earth's systems are loosely modeled at best and we're looking for "where's the additional heat coming from" when the models' equations arent quite reproducing reality.

 

Its funny reading rebuttals and you get "peer review, peer review, and peer review" as "issues" with something. As if that is some sort of substantive argument.

 

I also have to laugh at the whole "re-emitting" in all directions concept as some effective "additional heat source." You can measure net flow, or you can bullshit and come up with ways to make your equations balance, because you know something is wrong with them and you need a fudge factor to make them balance.

 

so when something like this is said:

 

The effect is a combination of solar radiative heating and the fact that the greenhouse gases block a portion of the long wavelength radiation to space and return it to the surface.

 

there is no 'returning to the surface.' the atmosphere decreases the rate of radiative loss to space, the atmosphere itself does not directly warm the surface. if you're counting up inputs to the surface temperature, the surface is in most areas hotter than the surface, so where's this warming coming from? it is a fiction.

 

At least one of the warmistas in the comments there accepted that "the greenhouse effect" as applied to the atmosphere is a misnomer, but on the other hand, it doesnt stop 'im from asserting that to say the term is not accurate is somehow congruent with saying water vapor, CO2, methane have no warming coefficient were that true. Really, that's the basis upon which G&T's paper is "refuted?" While the atmosphere may logically encapsulate certain phenomena that the true greenhouse effect exhibits, its not the same and if you are asserting the two are congruent you are being ignorant, dishonest, or both.

 

nobody in their right mind claims that the atmosphere doesnt act like a blanket, (albeit one that convects and have many flow patterns, and that certain gases have certain heat capacities.)

 

that doesnt mean CO2's heat capacity is ridiculously high (and well that's something we can measure directly on a molecular level, so not much room to fudge there,) and it doesnt mean that you can fudge the numbers by claiming re-radiation and all other sorts of funny concepts that go against the concept of measuring net flows are the mechanisms that somehow make co2 go parabolic in terms of heat capacity in the atmosphere.

 

so when I see

And therefore, contrary to your conclusion, there remains a discrepancy of *at least* 33 K that needs to be accounted for. And the so-called “greenhouse” effect is in fact the way to understand it.

 

that's a "here be dragons"

 

those blog posts are a bunch of freakin semantics games, just like most other attempts to say "deniers" are "wrong."

[ralis]

Correlation is not congruence - a greenhouse relies on the isolation of one air system from another, lest convection well overcome the system. That is the established definition before somebody had the bright idea to get inventive. So basically via "common usage" the definition of the greenhouse effect has become bastardized like a great many other inconvenient things that get addressed by simply changing verbiage around.

 

To use "greenhouse effect" is to assert primacy where other mechanisms are dominant - and that is the issue with saying we have a "greenhouse effect" problem here. In effect, the "greenhouse effect" = AGW/CO2, and it is a misnomer. The earth's systems are loosely modeled at best and we're looking for "where's the additional heat coming from" when the models' equations arent quite reproducing reality.

 

Its funny reading rebuttals and you get "peer review, peer review, and peer review" as "issues" with something. As if that is some sort of substantive argument.

 

I also have to laugh at the whole "re-emitting" in all directions concept as some effective "additional heat source." You can measure net flow, or you can bullshit and come up with ways to make your equations balance, because you know something is wrong with them and you need a fudge factor to make them balance.

 

so when something like this is said:

 

 

there is no 'returning to the surface.' the atmosphere decreases the rate of radiative loss to space, the atmosphere itself does not directly warm the surface. if you're counting up inputs to the surface temperature, the surface is in most areas hotter than the surface, so where's this warming coming from? it is a fiction.

 

At least one of the warmistas in the comments there accepted that "the greenhouse effect" as applied to the atmosphere is a misnomer, but on the other hand, it doesnt stop 'im from asserting that to say the term is not accurate is somehow congruent with saying water vapor, CO2, methane have no warming coefficient were that true. Really, that's the basis upon which G&T's paper is "refuted?" While the atmosphere may logically encapsulate certain phenomena that the true greenhouse effect exhibits, its not the same and if you are asserting the two are congruent you are being ignorant, dishonest, or both.

 

nobody in their right mind claims that the atmosphere doesnt act like a blanket, (albeit one that convects and have many flow patterns, and that certain gases have certain heat capacities.)

 

that doesnt mean CO2's heat capacity is ridiculously high (and well that's something we can measure directly on a molecular level, so not much room to fudge there,) and it doesnt mean that you can fudge the numbers by claiming re-radiation and all other sorts of funny concepts that go against the concept of measuring net flows are the mechanisms that somehow make co2 go parabolic in terms of heat capacity in the atmosphere.

 

so when I see

 

that's a "here be dragons"

 

those blog posts are a bunch of freakin semantics games, just like most other attempts to say "deniers" are "wrong."

 

I am finished with this so called discussion. Your opinion is entirely your own with no basis in science. Have fun talking to yourself.

[eye_of_the_storm]

hahaha

[voidisyinyang]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130613-antarctic-sea-ice-shelf-melt-glacier-ocean-science/?now=2013-06-13-00:01

 

Antarctic's Ice Shelves Melting From the Bottom Up Ice shelves lose more mass where the ice meets the sea than previously thought.

[joeblast]

but you failed to note the significant part of the article...

 

 

The data suggested that 48 percent of the meltwater lost from ice shelves came from smaller shelves on the southeastern Pacific side of Antarctica. These smaller units account for only about eight percent of the total ice shelf cover in Antarctica.

 

The big shelves—Ross East, Ross West, Filchner, and Ronne—which account for 61 percent of the ice shelf cover in the Antarctic, contributed only about 15 percent of the meltwater in the scientists' analysis.

 

 

So basically, the preponderance of this phenomena is happening in an area that is pretty much a different climate zone than the rest of the continent.

 

This is exactly among the misrepresentations I talk about - when you see some of Hansen's "smoothed" garbage-maps, what's done is taking some data mostly relevant to the peninsula and extrapolating it to be representative of the entire continent.

 

 

At least the nat'l geo article lets the real information slip out - but you have to have a little more knowledge about the continent, lest you be simply parroting a general conclusion about a smaller and somewhat climatologically distinct area.

 

"It basically puts the Southern Ocean up front as the most significant control on the evolution of the polar ice sheet.”

-lead author Eric Rignot, a UC Irvine professor

(see, this is where effects mainly in the peninsula are being smoothed spread extrapolated switched out for to the entire continent)

 

Steig et al modeled and extrapolated, they got it wrong.
Will they recognize this?

 

and if you recall, bob tisdale had a good explanation for this already, regarding the ocean currents being largely responsible for the phenomena - and that is one very substantial reason for the preponderance of the effects manifesting themselves on the antarctic peninsula. I'll post it if I happen to find it, but it was also noted that ocean currents and wind shear are also way more responsible for ice breakup vs melt from the "warm air".

 

and as far as they can tell, the antarctic ice sheet as a whole is growing and it still pretty well on the plus side for recent history. so simply put there is little need to take relatively localized effects for what percentage? and extrapolate them as representative of the whole.

 

 

 

 

So what is this nat'l geo article telling us?

 

(ok I'll just say it - *gasp* our model is wrong I mean not quite accurate!!!)

Edited June 14, 2013 by joeblast

[Owledge]

Still arguing about religion? Haha.

[joeblast]

surprising, coming from the ipcc.


‘If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. ‘

-IPCC lead author Hans Van Storch



SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven’t risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

[voidisyinyang]

Ice-Free Arctic May Be Near, Study Suggests

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/ice-free-arctic-may-be-near-study-20130513

 

 

So what is really happening in the Antarctic?

The short answer is that the ice around Antarctica is growing, but the ice on the continent is shrinking, and both are a result of climate change. Just how much it's changing and how fast depends on where you look.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/05/why-climate-change-means-more----and-less----ice-for-the-antarctic.html

 

 

It seems counter intuitive, but that growth is a result of the glacial melt happening on the rest of the continent, Carleton said. As fresh water melts into the ocean it decreases the salinity of the seawater, he explained. Water with less salt content freezes at a higher temperature, so even with warming air temperatures melting the glaciers, the Antarctic Ocean continues to gain sea ice.

Edited June 21, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[joeblast]

yeah, except that I already refuted that alarmist claptrap tack before - so the pbs article is the exact same thing, extrapolating "unprecedented"-ness to be representative of the entire continent. You *have* to conflate the peninsula with the rest of the continent in order to say unscientific things like "the ice around Antarctica is growing, but the ice on the continent is shrinking." See the antarctic link I posted before, its plain as day events on the peninsula are being touted as alarmist descriptions of the whole continent.

 

And the arctic sea ice extent have posted some pretty impressive curve-steepness in terms of the ice returning when its time, there's still nothing out of the realm of normal, expected variability there. The "ice-free arctic" meme is another result of taking an idea and linearly extrapolating it arbitrarily far into the future. I'm surprised you fall for such egregiously unscientific assumptions

 

It'll be a cold day in hell to see an ice free arctic in our lifetimes.

http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/324/theory-solar-cycle-www-sibet?page=14

[Owledge]

Well, regarding that interview thing:

 

It's very common. People aren't really regretting or doubting. They know they're not caring for objectivity, they're merely trying to somewhat secure their future credibility. This seems to work most of the time.

The only proper response in my opinion is to start a symphony of "I TOLD YOU SO" from all the scientists who have been dissed by those who now 'admit' their failure, and if this is received with aggression and defiance, then you have your evidence that they're not being sincere, or at least haven't learned anything and would do the same over and over.

I mean, this is what politicians do all the time: Sincerity is popular, so when a politician deliberately messed something up, they can always say: "I'm so sorry, I haven't given everything, I promise I will improve, I have learned from past mistakes blablabla"

Words are cheap.

 

And you have the dissing as evidence right there:

"Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break."

So he is the sole judge of what is "compelling"?

That's a bit like saying no-one has proven that humans consume oxygen just because I personally am not convinced.

And the "in five years" in the quote... that's counting on people's short memory span.

 

Suddenly they say that temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years? Well, then they have lied to people for many years. It is absurd how openly they can admit that without fearing grave consequences.

 

I wish people would recognize practiced politics in earlier stages and not confuse it with science.

Something is wrong when people who are being exposed as liars don't suffer a credibility loss. This goes into psychological disorder territory. Mass hypnosis/delusion.

New lies cover up older ones. First they say, temperatures are rising. Later they say temperatures WILL rise and then the first statement is being forgotten, overwritten by the newer one. All the while there are two information channels: One with official but obscure statements serving to save your ass and another one for the doomsaying. It's propaganda techniques.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Owledge

[joeblast]

http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/

 

Unreported by CRU is that they’ve resiled from the Yamal superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and now advocate a Yamal chronology, the modern portion of which is remarkably similar to the calculations in my posts of September 2009 here and May 2012 here, both of which were reviled by Real Climate at the time.

 

In today’s post, I’ll demonstrate the degree to which the new Briffa version has departed from the superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and the surprising degree to which it approaches versions shown at CA.

 

First here is a comparison from CA in Sep 2009 here of the Briffa 2008 superstick to a version that simply incorporated Schweingruber’s Khadyta River data, applying the method used by Briffa for Taimyr in Briffa et al 2008. Real Climate screeched in fury against this comparison.

 

 

Briffa et al 2013 report a new Yamal chronology (see SI here – look for yamal_trw). Below is a comparison of this new chronology to the Briffa et al 2008 superstick. Observant readers will note a remarkable similarity (TM-climate science) to the above comparisons to previous CA calculations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so much for briffa defending himself against mcintyre you aint a statistician, briffa, it doesnt matter how well you understand dendrochronology, if you bastardize the statistics then you get a crap result.