Bumper collection of "climate change" FAILS. Its all here: lies; fraud; censorship; bogus predictions; failed models & even doomsday cultism.
1) Misleading "Greenhouse" model
2) Fraud and data fudging
3) Failed Predictions going back over 50 years
4) Failed science & models
5) Fundamental flaw in the premise
1) Misleading "Greenhouse" model
Note: The graphs below illustrate at a glance that whatever the actual role of CO2 (by correlation between temperature and CO2) it is certainly not consistent with a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere functioning like a glass roof. This is a pity because Mars (96% CO2) would probably be a bit warmer if it were. The graphs come from a single excellent recent paper (details below) which is well worth a read. It is less about CO2 in isolation and more about CO2 with respect to THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT itself. You can also find it here where you can download a PDF. It does a perfectly good job of dispatching the nonsense science used by Climate Change movement to strongarm their way into the various avenues of social influence both scientifically and politically. Because of this I'm going just going to focus on one tiny little aspect, so minor you never hear it mentioned, yet so soaked in irony it begs to be pointed out.. So that's my objective here, pointing out the role of CO2 in a greenhouse and in the "greenhouse effect", nothing more.
The above mentioned paper:
Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere
. The "Green House Effect" is an analogy made to represent the earth and its atmosphere in principle using a greenhouse. For the benefit of those of you who may be a bit fuzzy on the concept of a greenhouse, here below is a quick synopsis of
1) How a real greenhouse works
2) How the greenhouse effect is supposed to work
1. In a real greenhouse CO2 plays no role in creating heat, only in boosting total growth, rate of growth and development of all plant life dramatically
2. In the theoretical model the role of CO2 is hypothesized to no longer be important in plant growth and it now switches for some reason to the role played by the glass roof. Its unknown if the glass roof is meant to nourish plants in this model..... There is strong speculative evidence to support this.
At this point I will leave you to make up your own mind about the greenhouse effect itself. The subject is investigated in detail in the paper by Peter Stallinga, and the greenhouse model is evaluated somewhat sarcastically by me in this post as a bonus. Weak humour aside, there is some benefit to pointing this out since the term has been around so long its not really given a second thought.
For more on Van Belmont's Experiment and many others click here for my post on transmutation (Biology's version of LENR).
Click HERE for my extensive sources page on Climate Change
Click Here for Peter Stallinga's Academic Publications and here for his Earthling News. He also has a dot org science nonprofit site with interesting bits and pieces, located here
In 2007, German online national daily Die Welt here warned that “a team of international climate scientists and researchers at NASA claimed the Arctic summer would be ice-free already in 2013.
According to Die Welt, NASA’s “climate expert” Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey made the claim at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
Spiegel: sailboats in an open Arctic in 2008
While in Germany, onn June 27, 2008, Der Spiegel cited scientists when it reported outrageously that the Arctic was “melting at a brutal speed”.
The German flagship weekly also quoted researcher Olav Orheim of the Norwegian Research Council: “Already last October I was predicting that the Arctic could be ice-free this summer” and “In August or September we will be seeing people cruising in sailboats up there.”
Seth Borenstein: planet has passed “an ominous tipping point”
On December 12, 2007, the AP’s Seth Borenstein reported at National Geographic that scientists were saying that the planet had “passed an ominous tipping point.” and that the Arctic was “screaming” as if it were in its death throes.
NASA’s Jay Zwally: Nearly ice-free by end of summer 2012.
NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally was also cited by the National Geographic, which reported: “…after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: ‘At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions’.”
John Kerry: Ice-free in 2013, not 2050
On October 16, 2009, Senator John Kerry at the Huffington Post here called climate change a “national security threat” and wrote:
It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”
Al Gore warned in 2007, 2008 and 2009
At about the same time, climate crusader Al Gore also preached of an imminent Arctic sea ice doomsday. The New American here wrote:
In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be ‘ice-free’ by around 2013 because of alleged ‘man-made global warming.’ Citing ‘climate’ experts, the government-funded BBC hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article under the headline: ‘Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.’ Other establishment media outlets did the same"
2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet
The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02550-9 (open access) Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming Abstract Methane seepage from the upper continental slopes of Western Svalbard has previously been attributed to gas hydrate dissociation induced by anthropogenic warming of ambient bottom waters. Here we show that sediment cores drilled off Prins Karls Foreland contain freshwater from dissociating hydrates. However, our modeling indicates that the observed pore water freshening began around 8 ka BP when the rate of isostatic uplift outpaced eustatic seat level rise. The resultant local shallowing and lowering of hydrostatic pressure forced gas hydrate dissociation and dissolved chloride depletions consistent with our geochemical analysis. Hence, we propose that hydrate dissociation was triggered by postglacial isostatic rebound rather than anthropogenic warming. Furthermore, we show that methane fluxes from dissociating hydrates were considerably smaller than present methane seepage rates implying that gas hydrates were not a major source of methane to the oceans, but rather acted as a dynamic seal, regulating methane release from deep geological reservoirs.
2013: Navy throws its hat into the ring. Boldly predicts an Arctic that is ice-free by 2016
HEREyou will find a very funny comparison of alarmist media reports on scientific data relating to warming, represented as facts that are not as easy to disprove. The secret here here was to compare the claims against each other. I found they directly contradict each other and it follows logically (and hysterically) that such direct, intractable logical conflicts must render in each case at least one (possibly both) of the claims impossible.
Other tools you can use to empower yourself include using the the internet pages archive called the Way Back Machine at Archive.org to source older versions of current websites or media reports that have been insidiously altered or even scrubbed from the internet. I'm afraid its gotten to be as serious as it sounds.
It gets even worse I'm afraid. The same powerful special interests in partnership with the "Big Tech" Silicon Valley Oligarchy have even begun putting pressure on the archiving sites to remove historical content in an attempt to remove any evidence of such discourse having ever occurred. I have been commentating on this problem for long enough to have built-up quite an extensive archive myself of academic papers, media reports, press releases and scientific studies considered dangerous the the consensus narrative of the sanitised establishment looking to completely fabricate a version of history.
In the interests of fairness and full disclosure, it is not the entire climatology discipline on trial here, but the core of it which to some extent has been politically captured to form the basis of the hypothesis that CO2 produced by humans will produce a runaway greenhouse effect (But that CO2, the vast majority without humans will not).
There was a successful push to conflate the broad strokes field of the Environmental Sciences, which always covered a number of disciplines (climatology being one, oceanography, atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and ecology) with the term " Climate Science" in an effort to make it less empirical and more political.
In some form or other, they now all hinge on policies shaped by presupposing the assertion that the human produced portion of CO2 is causing any warming measured last century and arguably the first couple of years of this century. It projects climate as being linear, not cyclical. Total CO2 constitutes a practically non existent 0.04% of our atmosphere and supposedly has the ability not just to influence climate in some small way, but along with other supposed greenhouse gasses (ie methane & water vapour which you hear far less about but the models do include them) somehow are what drives climate here on earth.
The climatology behind the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis (formally AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming) also relies on the assertion there is a natural CO2 balance and that extra human produced CO2 does not get absorbed as the natural portion does in part of of this balance and supposedly traps surplus heat. This heat, it claims, does not have a feedback cycle and simply builds up. The problem with this reasoning is that during the Cambrian CO2 levels were at a minimum 10 times higher, the Jurassic 6 times higher and Cretaceous 5 times higher. Perhaps you are starting to appreciate why there was never going to be any predictive success when they claim a rise by less than 1x factor, a minority percentage since industrialization, will produce a cataclysm? We cannot even believe that its produced a 1° rise since then by that reasoning.
CMIP5 models had a 5% predictive success rate, meaning climate science was second behind ^CDM Concordance cosmology in the race for the bottom, before CMIP6 allowed the discipline to take a decisive lead.
Failure in the past to predict atmospheric temperature changes was played down and ocean surface temperature has always been cited as a better indicator of our planets surface temperature. Well now we can say for sure that in this arena they have failed as well. Depending on which models & simulations are run, its a bit of a lucky dip. Typically atmospheric predictions are worse off when compared to observation, eg:
*NB I do not subscribed to either of these "facts" neither do think petroleum or any hydrocarbons are "fossil fuels". Those are irrelevant, the point is to highlight that the consensus science climate change agenda is easily exposed as nonsense even if only using consensus science itself. The bonus is that it won't get you censored (the downside is its usually wrong)