Wow that’s an incredibly comprehensive list of the climate science circus. The frustrating aspect, despite the evidence, is that brainwashed people, once they believe something, are so resistant to letting go of their beliefs and will reject any evidence to the contrary. Hopefully seeds will be planted in those minds (if they’re willing to read!)
There are an alphabet soup of organizations with a slew of contributors who are credentialed and objective. What is their motivation? We cannot hide behind credentialism, we need a proper red team blue team examination of the data. No meaningful debate takes place. The dozen debates I’ve witnessed all end up with the warmist reduced to ad hominem attacks and the denyist sticking to his facts. It would only take one paper to change my mind but no such paper exists.
The corbett report . What is technocracy - https://www.corbettreport.com/qfc-technocracy/The technocratic organization wants control over all energy resources from the start. "For the greater good" of course. It is like communism with rich elite governing the world. (Edit:) The World Economic Forum is the new technocracy.
This combines with Big Oil that was already having a monopoly on energy. Even with "alternative energy sources". They joined with banking system. https://www.corbettreport.com/yearzero-esg/
Here is how the Green-house effect really works -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8OMF2dSOG0 Explained with the spectrum and measurements. Conclusion: CO2 gives almost no increase in temperature. Only a small band of the spectrum is affected by CO2 and only on the surface. All heat is radiated out on all bands. This out-ward radiation increases far more at higher temperatures, which keeps the temperature nearly constant.
“For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.
If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition.
So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
You switch organizations with science. That is a clear logical error. That is why I write about the facts and not about people.
The people that were against the idea of CO2 causing a global warming disaster were simply pushed out of the organizations by Political idealists. But there are some NASA scientists in my references.
One explained how junior scientists were thinking that the sea was rising, because the satellites were slowly losing altitude. The researchers of sea-ice are reporting the periodic rise and fall of sea-ice. But the junior researchers get panicked when it first happens.
As you can see above the same organizations were first worried about global cooling. Even in relationship with CO2. That is because they are mainly POLITICAL organizations. Nothing to do with science.
"Exxon made 'breathtakingly' accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s. The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in order to protect its core business, new research has found. “
Link to image: "97% of scientists agree with those who fund them."
What is interesting, is how they came to that number in global warming. They picked all the papers that stated that there was a link between warming and people. And they selected only the researchers that wrote those papers.
So it is "97% of all people who found a correlation agree that there is a link between global warming and people."
I think CO2 was added later as the only culprit. And not deforestation, pollution and water-management that is also having effects on weather.
Climate on Greenland was warmer a lot of times -> https://odysee.com/@IvorCummins:f/the-best-climate-clip-i've-ever-seen:7
Wow that’s an incredibly comprehensive list of the climate science circus. The frustrating aspect, despite the evidence, is that brainwashed people, once they believe something, are so resistant to letting go of their beliefs and will reject any evidence to the contrary. Hopefully seeds will be planted in those minds (if they’re willing to read!)
There are an alphabet soup of organizations with a slew of contributors who are credentialed and objective. What is their motivation? We cannot hide behind credentialism, we need a proper red team blue team examination of the data. No meaningful debate takes place. The dozen debates I’ve witnessed all end up with the warmist reduced to ad hominem attacks and the denyist sticking to his facts. It would only take one paper to change my mind but no such paper exists.
The corbett report . What is technocracy - https://www.corbettreport.com/qfc-technocracy/The technocratic organization wants control over all energy resources from the start. "For the greater good" of course. It is like communism with rich elite governing the world. (Edit:) The World Economic Forum is the new technocracy.
This combines with Big Oil that was already having a monopoly on energy. Even with "alternative energy sources". They joined with banking system. https://www.corbettreport.com/yearzero-esg/
More CO2 will not heat earth, the adsorption is already maxed out.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456#bib0027
777 Imaginary Thermometers - Tony Heller exposes some of the global-warming fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgfzAgYDjE
Three Graphs That Show There Is No ‘Climate Crisis’
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/11/26/three-graphs-that-show-there-is-no-climate-crisis/
Something else to worry about: 'Time's finally up': Impending Iceland eruption is part of centuries-long volcanic pulse -> https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/volcanos/times-finally-up-impending-iceland-eruption-is-part-of-centuries-long-volcanic-pulse
May be interesting. Sunspot cycles are connected to the Earth and Jupiter -> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.08317.pdf
Two more links:
5 New Studies Indicate There Has Been No Net Warming Since The 1700s -> https://notrickszone.com/2023/08/10/5-new-studies-indicate-there-has-been-no-net-warming-since-the-1700s/ (Press Cancel to continue when asked for login)
Coral at the Great Barrier Reef Holds on to Recent Record Gains, Defying All Doomsday Predictions -> https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/10/coral-at-the-great-barrier-reef-holds-on-to-recent-record-gains-defying-all-doomsday-predictions/
How to Debunk Climate Change Alarmism - James Taylor -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7c8FaBsbic
Here is how the Green-house effect really works -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8OMF2dSOG0 Explained with the spectrum and measurements. Conclusion: CO2 gives almost no increase in temperature. Only a small band of the spectrum is affected by CO2 and only on the surface. All heat is radiated out on all bands. This out-ward radiation increases far more at higher temperatures, which keeps the temperature nearly constant.
Science (physics) demonstrates there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2. So there is no scientific basis for people worldwide to reduce CO2. -> https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf
“For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.
If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition.
So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
https://thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html
You switch organizations with science. That is a clear logical error. That is why I write about the facts and not about people.
The people that were against the idea of CO2 causing a global warming disaster were simply pushed out of the organizations by Political idealists. But there are some NASA scientists in my references.
One explained how junior scientists were thinking that the sea was rising, because the satellites were slowly losing altitude. The researchers of sea-ice are reporting the periodic rise and fall of sea-ice. But the junior researchers get panicked when it first happens.
As you can see above the same organizations were first worried about global cooling. Even in relationship with CO2. That is because they are mainly POLITICAL organizations. Nothing to do with science.
Consider this 'fact'?
"Exxon made 'breathtakingly' accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s. The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in order to protect its core business, new research has found. “
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research#:~:text=1%20month%20old-,Revealed%3A%20Exxon%20made%20%27breathtakingly%27%20accurate%20climate,predictions%20in%201970s%20and%2080s&text=The%20oil%20giant%20Exxon%20privately,business%2C%20new%20research%20has%20found.
We now know that it was not a good model. There are cycles. The best prediction model is not using CO2 influence at all.
During 70s and 80s the cycle was going up. So this is a good example of correlation instead of causation. Assuming the data is correct.
WHAT of this you DO NOT UNDERSTAND ?,,,https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F22a943bb-ff1f-4cfd-a0de-1800223aa656_796x570.png
Link to image: "97% of scientists agree with those who fund them."
What is interesting, is how they came to that number in global warming. They picked all the papers that stated that there was a link between warming and people. And they selected only the researchers that wrote those papers.
So it is "97% of all people who found a correlation agree that there is a link between global warming and people."
I think CO2 was added later as the only culprit. And not deforestation, pollution and water-management that is also having effects on weather.
I LIKE PAPERS from scientists in NATURE. IPCC are a bunch of burocrats with good pay-check to lie.