Tuesday 15 December 2015

IS THE WHOLE GLOBAL WARMING THING A SCAM?

Oregon Petition

wikipedia.org

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, is a petition urging the United States government to reject the global warming Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and similar policies.[1] It was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1998, and again in 2007.[2][3] Past National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition.[4]
According to Robinson, the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,[1][2][3] mostly in engineering.[5] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.[6] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, members of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[7]

Petition text

The text of the petition reads, in its entirety:[4][8]
The petition included a covering letter from Frederick Seitz, chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, and made reference to his former position as president of the US National Academy of Sciences; together with a manuscript plus a reprint of a December 1997 Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. The current version of Seitz's letter describes the summary as "a twelve page review of information on the subject of 'global warming'."[9] The article is titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.[10][11][12]
As of October 2007, the petition project website includes an article by Arthur Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, published in 2007 in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.[13]

Signatories

The Oregon Petition Project clarified their verification process as follows:
  • The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail, to limit fraud. Older signatures submitted via the web were not removed. The verification of the scientists was listed at 95%,[14] but the means by which this verification was done was not specified.
  • Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree.[15] The petition sponsors stated that approximately two thirds held higher degrees.[14] As of 2013, the petition's website states, "The current list of 31,487 petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."[16]
  • Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. As of 2007, about 2,400 people in addition to the original 17,100 signatories were "trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition."[dead link][14] The petition sponsors state the following numbers of individuals from each discipline:[16]
    • Atmospheric, Environmental and Earth sciences: 3,805 (Climatology: 39)
    • Computer and Mathematical sciences: 935
    • Physics & Aerospace sciences: 5,812
    • Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: 2,965
    • Medicine: 3,046
    • Engineering and General Science: 10,102

Credentials and authenticity

The credentials, verification process, and authenticity of the signatories have been questioned.
Jeff Jacoby promoted the Oregon Institute petition as delegates convened for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1998. Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, said event organizers "take it for granted" that global warming is real when scientists do not agree "that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful" or "that human activity leads to global warming in the first place."[17] George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."[18] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[19] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[20] the movie Star Wars,[19] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[21] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[20] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[22] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[23] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant".[24]
In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."
Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[25]
Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield says scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:
"In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap."[26][27]

NAS incident

A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[28] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[29] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[29]
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[30] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[30]
Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[29] A 2006 article in the magazine Vanity Fair stated: "Today, Seitz admits that 'it was stupid' for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming".[31]

See also

Portal icon Global warming portal

References

  1. Brennan, Phil (May 19, 2008). "31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming". Newsmax. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
  2. Avery, Dennis (May 24, 2008). "31000 scientists sign Oregon GW Skeptic Petition". Canada Free Press. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
  3. Henry, Devin (May 28, 2008). "Climate change petition pits scientists against each other". Minnesota Daily. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
  4. "What warming consensus?". The Washington Times. November 16, 1998. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
  5. Morrison, David (September–October 2011). "Reports of the National Center for Science Education". National Center for Science Education. ISSN 2159-9270.
  6. Idso, Craig and S. Fred Singer (2009). "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Appendix 4, The Petition Project" (PDF). The Heartland Institute. ISBN 978-1-934791-28-8. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
  7. Mann, Michael E. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Columbia University Press. p. 66.
  8. "Global Warming Petition Project". Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Retrieved 2012-08-25.
  9. Frederick Seitz. "Letter from Frederick Seitz". OISM. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
  10. A. B. Robinson, S. L. Baliunas, W. Soon, & Z. W. Robinson (1998). "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". J. Am. Physicians and Surgeons 3, 171-178.
  11. A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, W. Soon (2007). "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". J. Am. Physicians and Surgeons 12, 79-90.
  12. W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas, A. B. Robinson, and Z. W. Robinson (1999). "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". Climate Research 13, 149-164.
  13. Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon. Published in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2007; 12(3), 79.
  14. "Explanation". OISM. Archived from the original on 2007-08-20. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
  15. OISM Mail-in Petition
  16. "Qualification of Signers". OISM. Archived from the original on 2013-10-03. Retrieved 2013-10-20.
  17. Jeff Jacoby. Scientists don't agree on global warming, The Boston Globe. 5 November 1998.
  18. George Woodwell and John Holdren. Climate-Change Skeptics Are Wrong New York Times. November 14, 1998.
  19. Myanna Lahsen (Winter 2005). "The Example of the 1998 Petition Campaign". Technocracy, Democracy, and U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values 30. p. 137. doi:10.1177/0162243904270710.
  20. Joseph H. Hubert Odd Names Added to Greenhouse Plea Associated Press. (abridged version) 1 May 1998.
  21. David McNeely. It’s easy for pseudoscientists to mislead people, Edmond Sun. February 22, 2006.
  22. Todd Shelly. Bashing the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, Hawaii Reporter. 14 July 2005.
  23. "Frequently Asked Questions". Global Warming Petition Project. Retrieved 2010-09-10.
  24. Kevin Grandia. The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked The Huffington Post. October 27, 2012.
  25. "Skepticism About Skeptics (sidebar of Climate of Uncertainty)". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 2006-08-23., October 2001
  26. Peter Hadfield. How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics The Guardian. 29 March 2010.
  27. Peter Hadfield. Meet the Scientists. 25 May 2010.
  28. Arthur B. Robinson; Sallie L. Baliunas; Willie Soon; Zachary W. Robinson (January 1998). "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". OISM and the George C. Marshall Institute. Archived from the original on 2007-01-14. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
  29. David Malakoff (10 April 1998). "Climate Change: Advocacy Mailing Draws Fire". Science 195 (5361): 195. doi:10.1126/science.280.5361.195a.
  30. "Statement by the Council of the National Academy of Sciences regarding Global Change Petition" (Press release). National Academy of Sciences. April 20, 1998. Retrieved 2010-03-04.
  31. Mark Hertsgaard (May 2006). "While Washington Slept".

Further reading

External links




climate-change AP
Climate change has been 'disproved' and polar ice is 'increasing'
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.

In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly.
"The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.
"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).
"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."
climate change global warming mythAP
Man made climate change is a myth according to Coleman, inset
I have studied climate change seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid
John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel
Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'
He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.
"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.
"There has been no warming over 18 years." 
The IPCC argue their research shows that man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable.
US News and World Report noted that many of the world’s largest businesses, including Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Nestle, Mars, Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Microsoft, and IBM, "are now engaged and actively responding to climate science and data."
Mr Coleman's comments come as President Barack Obama came under fire from climatologists as federal data revealed The United State's energy-related carbon pollution rose 2.5 per cent despite the President's pledges to decrease it.
President Obama told 120 world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month that America had done more under his watch in cutting greenhouse gases than any other country.
Despite this, the Energy Information Administration's Monthly Energy Review showed an increase in the use of energy from coal.
World leaders have pledged to keep the global average temperature from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.
The US, along with the UK and other developed countries, is expected to pledge further actions on climate change early next year.
Global warming climate change lieGETTY
There has been no recorded global warming for 18 years
Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman's claims.
He added: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.
"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."
The 2010 InterAcademy Council review was launched after the IPCC's hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

 http://www.express.co.uk



Climate change DOUBT: Study shows carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere are OVERSTATED

 

Sceptics say the new study just further proves that the science of climate change is not settled Sceptics say the new study just further proves that the science of climate change is not settled [GETTY]
They said the impact of rising CO2 levels on plant growth has been underestimated by 16 per cent.
And as plants absorb CO2, this has led to overestimates of how much of the greenhouse gas is left in the atmosphere.
Climate sceptics said the study by American scientists is yet more proof that the science of climate change is not settled and is instead much more complicated than previously thought.
And one leading climate scientist said the paper suggests that cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases may not need to be as deep to keep global warming below what is seen as the critical increase of 2C.
The paper also confirms that the Earth's climate system is far more complex and far less understood than many people claim
Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Forum
This casts doubt on the drive for costly anti-pollution measures such as wind farms.
Climate change is widely blamed on man's burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas which release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that trap the heat in the atmosphere.
The study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences focusses on the slow diffusion of CO2 in plant leaves, with particular attention to the mesophyll or their inner tissue.
It concludes: "Carbon cycle models that lack explicit understanding of mesophyll diffusion will underestimate historical and future terrestrial carbon uptake.
"Consequently, they will overestimate historical and future growth rates of atmospheric CO2 concentration due to fossil fuel emissions, with ramifications for predicted climate change."
A lone polar bear sits on a slab of ice floe – these are becoming rarer in the Arctic ocean and bears more often drown A lone polar bear sits on a slab of ice floe – these are becoming rarer in the Arctic ocean [GETTY ]
Clouds rise into the air above Fiddlers Ferry power station in Warrington, UK Clouds rise into the air above Fiddlers Ferry power station in Warrington, UK [GETTY]
The report comes with climate change having paused for the past 18 years - but with climate scientists arguing that this is a temporary blip.
Some studies suggest that the excess heat has been absorbed by the deep oceans and could return to the atmosphere in about 30 years.
But Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Forum said: "This new paper adds to a growing body of research which shows that climate science is far from settled. Quite the opposite is true: the more we learn, the more we realise just how little we know.
"The research claims that current computer models have failed to account for past and current terrestrial carbon sinks and are thus inherently flawed in making any accurate climate predictions.
"The paper also confirms that the Earth's climate system is far more complex and far less understood than many people claim."
Dr Chris Huntingford, Climate Modeller at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said the study could make fighting climate change a bit easier.
He said: "This new paper suggests plants are slightly better at capturing CO2 than we thought.
"This new research implies it will be slightly easier to fulfil the target of keeping global warming below two degrees - but with a big emphasis on 'slightly'.
"Overall, the cuts in CO2 emissions over the next few decades will still have to be very large if we want to keep warming below 2C."

 
Prof Peter Cox, Professor of Climate System Dynamics at the University of Exeter, said even if the study was correct, the effect will be "relatively small" compared to uncertainties about how much carbon will be absorbed by plants and soil.
He said: "Avoiding 2C of global warming is a huge challenge for humanity even if this effect is taken into account."
Dr Roger Dargaville, a research fellow and leader of the MEI Energy Futures Group at the University of Melbourne, Australia, said the impact of plants described in the paper "does not remove the necessity to dramatically reduce fossil carbon emissions over the next 40 years to avoid dangerous climate change".
And Dr Simon Lewis, Reader in Global Change Science at University College London, said the study focusses on only one of many factors affecting how much carbon can be stored by plants.
He said: "The level and speed of greenhouse gas emissions cuts needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change are not altered by this new study."



Ozone layer hole is getting SMALLER and may shrink completely by 2025

 

OzoneScientist praised global action for allowing the ozone layer to recover [ALAMY ]
These images show that the 11.5million sq mile-hole in the layer that appears every year above Antarctica has stopped growing.
Scientists say it could shrink significantly in the next decade, and that the news should galvanise international efforts to fight climate change.
For the past 35 years the layer, lying about 20 miles above the planet, has been thinning, destroyed by CFC gases used in fridges and aerosol sprays.
But in 1987 the Montreal Protocol phased out ozone-depleting chemicals, including CFCs.
It is expected to be preventing two million cases of skin cancer a year by 2030.
World Meteorological Organisation senior scientific officer Geir Braathen said: “For the first time in this report we say that we see indications of a small increase in total ozone.
"That means recovery of the ozone layer in terms of total ozone has just started.”
ozoneExperts have predicted that by 2025 the ozone hole will be much smaller [AP]
The report, by the WMO and the UN Environment Programme said the ozone layer is expected to recover to its 1980 level by mid-century, or slightly later for Antarctica, where it gets dangerously thin every year between mid-August and November or December.
Dr Braathen said growth in the size of the ozone hole “has stopped, so it has levelled off.”
He added: “We think in about 2025 or thereabouts we’ll be able to say with certainty that the ozone hole is getting smaller.”
WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said the success showed what international cooperation can achieve.
He said: “International action on the ozone layer is a major environmental success story... This should encourage us to display the same level of urgency and unity to tackle the even greater challenge of tackling climate change.”
UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner also called for international action to sustain the ozone recovery and tackle global warming.


He said: “There are positive indications that the ozone layer is on track to recovery towards the middle of the century.
“However, the challenges that we face are still huge.
The success of the Montreal Protocol should encourage further action not only on the protection and recovery of the ozone layer but also on climate.”
The reduction of ozone-damaging chemicals helps the environment, said the report said, because many were also greenhouses gases blamed for global warming.
But the report warned that these climate benefits could be offset by HFC gases used to replace the ozone-depleting chemicals.
It said: “Hydrofluorocarbons  (HFCs) do not harm the ozone layer but many of them are potent greenhouse gases.
“They currently contribute about 0.5 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year.
“These emissions are growing at a rate of about 7 per cent per year. Left unabated, they can be expected to contribute very significantly to climate change in the next decades.”



The Ozone layer is safe

They say that phasing out almost 100 substances once used in such products as refrigerators and aerosols has stopped the layer from further depletion.
Ozone in the stratosphere is important because it absorbs most of the sun’s dangerous ultraviolet radiation, which can lead to skin cancer and eye damage.
Although it is not yet increasing again, the ozone layer outside the polar regions is, by the year 2048, expected to recover to the levels it was at 30 years ago.
The United Nations report, Scientific Assessment Of Ozone Depletion 2010, paints a much more optimistic picture than previous assessments and is the first comprehensive update in four years.
It argues that action taken through the Montreal Protocol, which began in 1987 and has introduced the reduction of harmful emissions, has helped to halt the damage.
Global ozone, including ozone in the polar region is no longer decreasing but not yet increasing
Len Barrie, head of research at the World Meteorological Organisation
Achim Steiner, UN under-secretary general and environmental programme executive director, said: “Without the Protocol, levels of ozone-depleting substances could have increased tenfold by 2050.
“This, in turn, could have led to up to 20 million more cases of skin cancer and 130 million more cases of eye cataracts, not to speak of the damage to human immune systems, wildlife and agriculture.”
News that the protective layer in the earth’s upper atmosphere has stopped thinning was widely welcomed last night.
Len Barrie, head of research at the World Meteorological Organisation, said: “The Montreal Protocol to control ozone depleting substances is working. It has protected us from further ozone depletion over the past decades.
“Global ozone, including ozone in the polar region is no longer decreasing but not yet increasing.”
Craig Bennett, campaigns director for pressure group Friends Of The Earth, said: “If we carry on doing the job that we are doing then we will restore the hole, but there is still along way to go.
“It shows that we can deal with big problems but Governments have to stay firm to the Montreal Protocol.
“There has been a huge time delay from the action being taken and the ozone layer not getting any bigger.
“It shows what is possible if Governments listen to scientists and look at scientific evidence.”
He added: “It’s a lot simpler issue than climate change but we can rise to challenges and should not despair.”
In 2010, reductions of ozone-depleting substances as a result of the Montreal Protocol, were five times larger than the targets of the Kyoto Protocol, the greenhouse emissions reduction treaty, adopted in 1997.
However, despite the good news in yesterday’s report, there was a warning that much was still to be done and complacency had to be avoided.
The scientists who compiled the UN report said one important challenge that still remained was to examine the complex links between ozone and climate change.
Changes in climate are still expected to have an increasing influence on stratospheric ozone in the coming decades, the report said. These changes would come mainly from the emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide, which are caused by human activity.
Ozone provides a natural protective filter against harmful ultra-violet rays from the sun, which can cause sunburn, cataracts and skin cancer as well as damaging vegetation.
First observations of a seasonal ozone hole appearing over the Antarctic occurred in the 1970s.
The alarm was raised in the 1980s after it was found to be worsening under the onslaught of CFC emissions – previously used in air conditioning and cooling units and in aerosol sprays – prompting 196 countries to join the Montreal Protocol.
Although CFCs have been phased out, they accumulated and persist in the atmosphere and the effect of the curbs will take years to filter through.
The ozone hole over the South Pole, which varies in size and is closely monitored when it appears in springtime each year, is likely to persist even longer and may even be aggravated by climate change, the report added.




TopTenAlGore2


The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.
I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.

1. Record Ice
In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica  in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.

2. Record Snow
2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.

3. Record Cold
In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”

4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

5. Polar Bears Are Thriving
You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.

6. Moose Are Making A Comeback
A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.

If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players

One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)