About Climate Skeptics

re Climate Skeptics About section on websites:

"The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming."

We focus on the lies and the little facts that can falsify arguments. Its up to the folks that are putting forth the hypothesis to come up with unfalsifiable evidence and its up to us to falsify those arguments. That's how science works. If anywhere in your hypothesis it says "2+2=5" and we point it out then we win. Its that simple. Climate fascists have to correct their work, not accuse us of not "looking at the broader picture". There have been some huge lies and/or errors. One can watch the movie Global Warming or Global Governance or The Great Global Warming Swindle to see what real climate scientists say about the practice of science inside the UN's IPCC.

We do not have to look at big pictures, only find little lies and sometimes big lies. Bad data collection is a form of lie. If the pro ACCer's are intentionally misleading and twisting and changing their arguments we only need to point that out.

This "about" section shows how little climate skeptics knows about science, or how stupid they think their readers are. More than likely, the latter.


Later in the same page it states:

"Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year."

So obviously this guy isn't stupid when it comes to science. He just thinks his readers are.

You can never underestimate the greenies lack of understanding when it comes to science. Many claim to be looking at the science when they have only a bachelors degree in something like biology. Climate Science is applied math, and understood at this level by a very few. Fortunately, for our side, we only have to point out the lies and where they say "2+2=5". I know it doesn't seem fair to the twisted leftist mind, but its just logic.

50 Climate Scientists

I've been on the Linked In discussion groups talking about global warming, climate change or whatever is fashionable for it to be called these days. These fascists have really started making me angry and my keyboard has undergone some serious punishment as I have pounded on it to try and convince some of the unconvinceable that they are being bamboozled by these pro ACC folks.

I surf through their links in their posts on the discussions and try to find actual 'climate scientists' - known better as 'atmospheric physicists'. I'm looking for some actual scientists - the atmospheric kind - the kind who's reputation will take a beating if they are wrong about this whole Greenhouse Gas thingy- the kind of words that have responsibility behind them.

It turns out, in my previous look at qualifications of 'qualified folks' that most of the so called environmental scientists are actually sociologists and biologists. A sociologist or biologist won't take a beating if he or she is wrong about atmospheric physics "I got bamboozled just like everyone else", they can always say.

I found an article in the Guardian...ha ha!! Real climate scientists at last ! Because I would rather believe the AGW hypothesis is true than what I do actually believe. I want to be convinced that the AGW hypothesis is true because I would be a lot happier if I did. What I think is far worse. What I think makes me ashamed to be a member of this species.

Part of what makes me ashamed to be a member of the species is that I cannot get anyone from the pro AGW /ACC camp to go here PetitionProject I think its because they are afraid. Cult members are going to be afraid of things like this and this too. You can't get them to look at what real climate scientists are saying. They live in a world of smoke, mirrors and politics. Their cult leaders have warned them about going to sites like these.

But I look, I looked at the Guardian and was thinking "Oh good....I was wrong..." But I wasn't.

Maybe if I can show them once again how they are being bamboozled..instead of taking stupid Liberal insults and having those take the place of intelligent argument.

So, lets see what constitutes Climate Scientist in the mind of a Cult Member. The Guardian has an article entitled: Climate Consensus: The 97 %. So lets see...

(1)Dr. Catherine Potvin, Professor, Department of Biology  Ok Ok.  So you don't always get it right the first time..so lets try it again.

(2)Dr. Chantelle Richmond, Western University - dept of Geography. Twice the charm...

(3)Dr. Fikret Berkes, University of Manitoba - Natural Resources.  Never give up

(4)Dr. Mark Stoddart, Memorial University - Dept of Sociology. I think we may find one actual physicist, but I'm not betting on it. Keep trying. Never give up...

(5) Dr. Sally Aitken, University of British Columbia - Forest Genetics

(6)  Dr. Aerin Jacob, University of Victoria: - Applied Conservation Science

(7) Dr. Alison Kemper, Ryerson University - Marketing

(8) Dr. André Potvin, Université Laval- Architecture

(9) Dr. Andreas Heyland, University of Guelph - Comparative physiology

(10) Dr. Ann Dale, Royal Roads - University Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Community Development

(11) Dr. Ashlee Cunsolo Willox, Cape Breton University - Nursing & Indigenous Studies

(12) Dr. Brent Sinclair - biologist

(13) Dr. Bruno Dyck, University of Manitoba - Business administration

There is a bit of  trend here, I don't think we are going to see a world class climate scientist in this group. The qualifications seem to be diverging into fields where one may not even be required to know what climate even is.

So if the sky is falling and the earth will die unless we let the banks and their UN start telling us what we can and cannot have for energy while they fly around in private jets, I want to hear it from an actual Climate Scientist !!!

Naomi Shocking Us Into Green Communism Based on AGW fraud

Naomi Klein, author of the famous book, The Shock Doctrine, showed us the value of shock in leading us into the fraudulent war on terror. She has written another book, using the methods given in The Shock Doctrine to shock us into United Nations Agenda 21 based on the phoney AGW threat.

The Rhodes Scholar seems to have followed lessons that she learned from the US Neocons to shock us into helping the global financiers in establishing their Neoliberal Green communist agenda (Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development) New World Order.

She has an interview of the Ford Foundation funded Democracy Now! Here

So you don't have to buy her stupid book.

She says we must transform the economy to reduce "emissions" - of carbon, I assume. I think the only emissions we need to worry about are those emanating from people like Naomi Klein.

Its important to know that burning hydrocarbons has the by products of water and carbon dioxide. (That "smoke" you see coming out of "smoke stacks" of Western clean burning coal burning plants in AGW propaganda is actually water). Both of these are life giving gases.

In the Chinese coal plants? Who knows. They don't have regulations over there and the Neoliberal Rhodes Scholar isn't pushing for trade sanctions against China and their slave factories to reduce real harmful rather than imaginary harmful emissions that are the result of by-products emitted by dirty plants without 'scrubbers'.

Naomi's argument is a scientific one - we must stop putting "carbon", meaning CO2, into the environment to stop global warming. Really CO2 isn't bad for the environment according to qualified folks.

The science behind the pro AGW movement has always been political science and the science behind the anti AGW movement has always been the hard kind.You don't see qualified folks like this on Naomi's side of things, you see people like....well....Naomi. They always say they have qualified people behind them, you just never hear from these qualified people. They have corporate media to repeat their mantra until it gets believed.

The rest of the interview is such BS that I can't even pollute my keyboard by repeating it here. She says "We must invest more in the public sphere...." - just to warn you. You won't believe it if I just write it all here anyhow. See for yourself at the Ford Foundation media outlet linked above.

Bonn or bust – The UN’s last, desperate bid for unelected world government

From SPPI Blog

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Bonn

April 9, 2010

There are not many empty seats in the dismal, echoing conference chamber in the ghastly concrete box that is the Hotel Maritim here in Bonn, where the UN’s latest attempt to maneuver the 194 States Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change gets underway today.

The “international community”, as it is now called, is here in full force, in the shape of expensively-suited, shiny-shod bureaucrats with an urbane manner and absolutely no knowledge of climate science whatsoever.

However, one empty chair is a pointer of things to come. The Holy See – a tiny nation in its own right, with a billion citizens around the world – has left its chair empty. And that is significant. If “global warming” still mattered, the Vatican would make sure that its representatives were present throughout this gloomy gathering of world-government wannabes.

This emergency conference, called by the UN’s bureaucrats because they were terrified that Cancun this December might fail as spectacularly as Copenhagen did last year, is a much quieter affair than Copenhagen. Not only has the air of triumphalism gone, after the scandals of Climategate, Himalayagate, Amazongate and so forth, but the belief that “global warming” is a global crisis has largely gone too.

There are a few true-believers left among the national delegates, but more of them than before are open to discussion of the previously-forbidden question – what if the climate extremists have made the whole thing up?

The Chinese Xinhua News Agency, for instance, came up to the table manned by the environmental campaigners of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which takes a hard-boiled, cynical view of the notion that a tiny increase in the atmospheric concentration of a trace gas is likely to cause a thousand international disasters.

The reporters were genuinely interested to hear that there is another side to the story. Huan Gongdi, the Agency’s senior correspondent in Germany, asked me what I thought of the Copenhagen accord (a waste of time), what was happening in Bonn (a desperate attempt to ram through a binding Treaty that can be put in front of the US Senate before the mid-term elections make Senate acceptance of any such treaty unthinkable), and whether or not there was a climate crisis anyway (there isn’t).

I explained to Mr. Huan that even if the UN had not exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 many times over there was still nothing we could do about the supposed “crisis”, because we were emitting so little of the stuff in the first place.

For the record, I did the sum in front of him. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 today is about 388 parts per million by volume. However, we are adding just 2 ppmv a year to the air. So the warming we cause each year, even if one believes the UN’s wild exaggerations of CO2’s warming effect, is just 4.7 times the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration from 388 to 390 ppmv.

Thus, 4.7 ln(390/388) = 0.043 Fahrenheit degrees – less than a twentieth of a Fahrenheit degree of “global warming” every year. That is all. Putting it another way, it would take almost a quarter of a century with no carbon-emitting activity at all – not a single train, plane, automobile, or fossil-fueled power station – to forestall just 1 Fahrenheit degree of “global warming”.

That is why no Treaty based on controlling the amount of carbon dioxide the world emits can possibly work. And that is why there is no hurry anyway. The only reason for the UN’s sense of urgency – a panic no longer felt by the majority of the delegates here – is that the bureaucrats know the game is up. Opinion polls throughout the free world show that no one now believes a word of the climate extremists’ nonsense any more. If they can’t get a binding treaty this year, they won’t get one at all, and they know it.

I shall be reporting frequently from the conference as events unfold. Check back often at www.sppiblog.org.

*************

This will be interesting to watch. Hopefully we see the AGW hypothesis in its death throes rather than being revived.

Climate Change Exposure: The Hidden Gem

The whole climate change supporting bureaucracy has been exposed through the efforts of a few heroic hackers. We all know this - at least those of us who can still think.

But, Lord Monckton, today on Alex Jones (3rd hour starting at the beginning of the 2nd hour) was calling for the abolition of the UN. Imagine that ! He calls for the formation of a world political party to oppose these morons at the local level.

He talks about the overpopulation goals of the AGW hypothesis supporters and speaks truth at every turn, without pulling any punches.