The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Farmhand]

It says this under the graph.

1999 prediction black line; actual temperatures red line; yellow diamonds individual years

The only thing they don't say the meaning of is the "grey area".

The 1999 prediction is the [(EDITED) black dashed line]. They say it a comparison to the
pre-industrial era so my question is where is the data to compare to ?

It must be the grey area and if we look at the Mean temps (the center of the
grey area) the current temps appear to be right up the center. Pretty much.

P.S. this source gives the quoted line meanings above.
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...ngly-accurate/

And this source says this.

Global warming predictions prove accurate | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The climate forecast published in 1999 is showed by the dashed black line. Actual temperatures are shown by the red line (as a 10-year mean) and yellow diamonds (for individual years). The graph shows that temperatures rose somewhat faster than predicted in the early 2000s before returning to the forecasted trend in the last few years. Photograph: Nature Geoscience

The original report cannot be read without paying money.

..

[Peter Lindemann]

More Nonsense from the British Met Office

Hey Folks,

Here are two new articles about the great work the British Met Office is doing. In the first article, the author starts with this line: The Met Office has admitted issuing advice to government that was "not helpful" during last year's remarkable switch in weather patterns. This had to do with a new, experimental "3 month forecast." Considering they want us all to believe their 20 and 50 year forecasts, this article provides needed perspective.

BBC News - Met Office three-month forecast was 'not helpful'

And here is another article from today (Easter Sunday) about record cold in the UK happening right now. In this article, they admit that they started keeping "modern records" in 1960! I don't quite understand what that means, since "modern weather records" began in the USA in the 1880s.

BBC News - Coldest Easter Sunday on record, Met Office confirms

Enjoy,
Peter

[level]

Hi Level, What does the other data on the graph represent ?
On the left side it says "Temperature compared to pre-industrial".
So the big grey area is the spread of temperatures before industrial activities ?

If so the temps we see now are well within normal pre-industrial limits. What's
the fuss ? How does that prove it is only caused by human industrial activities ?
And how did it get so hot before without any industry ?

What does the black line represent ?

I think it is well known the Earth was much warmer (at times) in the past
before the industrial revolution.

Carbon Tax is still a criminal scam, in my opinion. It is the want for money
that causes the problem, if it is caused by us that is. Increase the want
increase the problem. A bit of warm weather is not worth worrying about
considering all the other more acute toxic contaminants humans put into the
environment.

Carbon tax is just another commodity to use to make more money and the
legitimacy for it is created by deception, fear mongering and propaganda.
...

Hi farmhand. The dashed grey line is the 1999 forecast issued by some scientists from Oxford University. The red line represents a 10 year mean of the actual recorded temperatures. Not sure what the solid black line represents or what the grey region represents on the chart, but the grey region may represent the predicted max and min limits with the dashed line being the mean.

The thing is, from what I have been able to gather, many leading climate scientists from around the world seem to be in pretty close agreement about the whole climate change thing and where it is most likely leading, so it would seem that although there may be some level of variation and disagreement amongst different climate scientists, the overall data does seem to support the science and concerns and predictions.

Regarding carbon tax, I agree that it would seem somewhat doubtful that such a tax would really have any significant impact, as it is the end consumers who will end up paying for this. It might curb greenhouse gas emissions a bit, but the energy needs for things like heating, lighting, and transportation, etc. continues on the same course (i.e. increasing overall), so the end result is likely that people just end up paying more for energy, but greenhouse gas emissions will not be curbed much. In my opinion governments should be moving focus and financial investment and incentives to green technology research and development, but the problem that I see is many governments are very much in the pocket of big oil and big industry in general. Instead of promoting and supporting new research and development into new greener energy technologies, many governments stall and make all sorts of excuses and instead continue to give big industry all sorts of financial incentives to continue doing what they have pretty much been doing all along.

In regards to the climate change predictions in general, it has been stated that the effects of climate change are most notable at the polar regions of the Earth. If one looks at what has been happening in the arctic and Antarctica regions in the last twenty years or so, it becomes quite obvious that there is great and rapid climate change occurring there. Glaciers and ice packs have been disappearing at a very rapid rate in the last twenty years or so. As one example in regards to ice packs, the Northwest Passage in the high arctic used to be pretty much completely impassable year round to ships of any kind, and various early explorers became trapped and many died trying to explore this region in ships in the past. In the last twenty years or so this region has been quickly changing, and in the last few years there are people in small yachts and the like that are sailing right across the Northwest Passage from end to end in the high arctic even in later in the fall, when it used to be completely impassable year round. Many people living in more temperate regions may not see such stark signs of changes yet, so it may be somewhat less obvious for many people living in these regions to directly see and experience the effects of climate change. Another aspect of climate change is that it can cause very unusual changes to normal weather patterns, such that some areas that used to have moderate winters might suddenly have a particularly harsh or cold winter, for example. This strange and sometimes harsh weather pattern variability that we seem to be starting to see more and more of around the world does not negate the notions of climate change, but are actually predicted by climate change models. Despite these sorts of unusual short term and longer term localized climate variations, the actual scientifically gathered and analyzed trend data seems to be supporting that the Earth is experiencing a marked and distinct average temperature warming trend.

People should be aware that many years ago when scientists began to release studies that showed a high correlation between smoking and various serious diseases, a number of the big tobacco companies began to pay for and initiate 'studies' with various 'scientific researchers' and the like who would release studies countering the real scientific research by many scientists around the world. The idea is to try to introduce doubt and confusion and make the whole thing seem like some sort of wishy-washy grey area to the general public, who for the most part do not have the background and expertise to be able to distinguish valid scientific research from industry bought and paid for fudged and faulty or otherwise questionable research. All indications are that big oil and big industry have been using this same tried and tested technique in a big way in regards to scientific climate change research. It seems to have been working well. Also, judging from the emotional reactions of many people who deny climate change, I am reminded of the whole denial that went on in in the past in regards to scientific announcements that the Earth was not flat. Many people's reactions and opinions seem to be driven mainly by belief rather than actual knowledge and understanding of the facts. It is for that reason that I rarely comment on this subject.

[Farmhand]

Yes Level but the planet has been warmer than it is now before the industrial
age, how is that explained ? It must have been a natural thing then and there is
no evidence now that tell me that even if all human carbon emissions were
stopped immediately the natural heating would stop.

I don't think many argue that there is climate change there must be, there is
cyclic climate change from natural causes. Both short term and long term.

I don't think there is any argument that people do cause more carbon dioxide
to be released, but it is the amount and the effect of the human contribution
that is in question.

How can they say for sure that this is not mostly a natural cycle with a tiny
bit of man made contribution ?

If the planet has been warm before why could it not naturally be warming up now ?

If the chart is a comparison to pre-industrial times then where is that data ?
Why was the comparison not shown ? Maybe it doesn't look as good
compared to not showing it.

Some islands maybe covered and coastlines may change, which has happened
before. Anyone who buys land on low land or near the coast is mad and
anyone who hasn't tried to sell that kind of land is also mad. My advice is if
you live near sea level then move to higher ground or be prepared to leave or
loose your land.

To mostly ignore the natural heating cycles is not scientific.

The climate scientists were caught lying and faking data to hide these heating
events in the pre-industrial era.. Why ? Because it didn't fit with the
propaganda and fear.

Trying to stop natural climate change would be like trying to stop the rotation of the Earth. Futile and a waste of time.

I can remember the big scare being about us going into another Ice Age, that
didn't happen. Then they say global warming, now it's climate change.

Who pays them ? You get the science results you pay for.

I'm reminded of how the GP told me vaccinations are safe but she could not even tell me what was in them.

I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce carbon pollution, I'm saying our
governments don't care about the effects of it, unless it concerns money for
the super rich. Gillard was likely told by her central bank bosses she had to do
it which would explain the backflip and why Rudd does not want the Job any
more, I think he preferred to lose his job as PM rather than to take orders from
bankers. Truth is likely any PM non compliant with the Central bankers wishes
is taken out of office, from behind the line of public knowledge.

I don't trust our governments or the science they pay for, on track record.
Their form is poor.

Cheers

[level]

Hi farmhand. I understand what you are saying, but I personally would be cautious against trying to raise counter arguments in regards to the scientific research based on an incomplete understanding of the actual science, methods, and research and data. Sure the whole area of prediction in science is a difficult matter, and amongst other things it involves a lot of complex statistical analysis based on whatever existing trend data exists and which can continue to be gathered. I think it would be a mistake however to assume that scientists around the world are approaching this all willy nilly without taking into account as fully as they can all the various factors and potential stumbling blocks such as you have mentioned.

Statistical analysis is not an exact science, but the methods and knowledge relating to this area of analysis has been constantly improving and growing, and has been put to practical use for many years now not only in scientific research, but in areas such as marketing and business and engineering, etc., and has proven very useful in these many areas. Again, from what I have personally gathered, it would seem the majority of climate scientists around the world are quite confident of where climate change is heading and of its strong correlation to human activity. I am personally inclined to give a reasonable degree of trust to the climate scientists on this one simply because they have the expertise, and also climate scientists overall seem to be in fairly wide agreement about this around the world, and also the sudden rapid changes we are physically seeing in climate patterns around the world in the last twenty to thirty years really do seem to lend strong support to this notion. It is easy for people to rationalize just about anything away as long as all the facts are not fully taken into account and fully understood and considered, but I personally tend to think the hard data and scientific analysis of the trends is pretty hard to ignore. I am not an expert, so I can't say for sure one way or the other of course, it is just my personal view, and I will leave it at that as discussions on this sort of subject tend to be much more emotionally driven than fact driven in my experience, and seldom lead anywhere too constructive. Just my personal take on it all.

[rickoff]

Since Margaret Thatcher's death on April 8th, there has been much talk about her support of the Global Warming movement. Indeed, in the years from 1988 through 1993 she was very outspoken in favor of governmental controls to counter global warming, and was actually the first prominent international figure to champion the cause of climate alarmism.

Thatcher went on to found the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in 1990, and gave early direction to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to elevate the issue world-wide. Thatcher held a press conference upon the release of the first IPCC assessment (1990) and warned that “greenhouse gases … will warm the Earth’s surface with serious consequences for us all.”

What's interesting to me is to note how her personal views on the subject matter dramatically changed in more recent years. In her 2003 book, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World, Thatcher wrote the following very revealing statement on pages 449-450:

"The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method."

I took the liberty of bolding the text in the above quote which I feel makes the most important statement, and which reveals what the global warming/climate change movement is really all about. Anyone who doubts this only needs to study the UN's Agenda 21 to understand why the issue of global warming/climate change was chosen as the vehicle for promoting and instituting socialism in the form of a one world government with centralized and absolute power and control over every aspect of human life. Agenda 21 has already been extensively implemented worldwide, and you may be surprised to learn that it either has already been, or will soon have been, implemented in your local community.

[Danny B]

Up is down and down is up.
Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

[Mad Scientist]

For the computer modeling to work it all depends on the type of program used and the data it is supplied with. Per the old adage “Garbage in = garbage out” but with fancy graphs and charts you can make that garbage look really really pretty.

We are told we must limit and get rid of CO2. But CO2 is what plants thrive on, if we get rid of the CO2 what happens to the plants and then what happens to us?

The so called carbon tax has nothing to do with saving the environment but rather it is a stealth method of gaining complete control over the population. With a carbon tax the “elite” can have total control over just about everything you do, as it can be used to determine the type of food you eat, the type of house you can live in, the type of car you can drive, the type of job you can work at, etc. Anything that in anyway produces or effects CO2 in anyway could be taxed and or regulated out of existence.

[Danny B]

Forbes

Strange to encounter truth in MSM
Global Warming Alarm: Continued Cooling May Jeopardize Climate Science And Green Energy Funding! - Forbes

[Johan]

Al Gore Publicly Admits

Al Gore Publicly Admits To Chemtrails Aerosol Spraying Projects On Ellen TV Show - YouTube

[Joit]

No, he does not admit anything, he clearly says, "Some Scientists propose ..."
like Chemtrails are not real.

[Johan]

Maybe just read non-verbal, he is holding back, and all-most, all-most says to much, but can't because of loosing his Rotary/Science-Club friends.

The examples he is mentioning, are result from Chem-****, not CO2.

Find that NASA there selves did admit it, but is only between 10-22 megaton, so don't worry!

------------------

Sorry, There is also no Free-Energy!

Regards, Johan

[Joit]

Maybe just read non-verbal, he is holding back, and all-most, all-most says to much, but can't because of loosing his Rotary/Science-Club friends.

The examples he is mentioning, are result from Chem-****, not CO2.

Find that NASA there selves did admit it, but is only between 10-22 megaton, so don't worry!

------------------

Sorry, There is also no Free-Energy!

Regards, Johan

No, not really that he does hold back anything. He only try to discredit Peoples what still believe in Chemtrails.
Our, (or more, the one from the CO2 Golbal warming Camp) so called experts all know, that there are no Chemtrails at the moment, (even when there is a Contract signed from Obama for Geo engineering) and also there is no hard Proof for it at the Moment. Just some measurements from private Peoples what find a higher Concentration from different material at different Areas
His argumentations for this Example still left space for him to revoke, that
high Polutions can form a Cloud, what blocks the Sunlight.
And his arguing anyway points more at, that the Sunlight, (infrared light) cause the higher Amount at the sea level, and thats the reason for this huuuge global warming what we have right now.
Dont think he did not do his Homework, its at last his Business to make his incoming with this Scam. And this Show really dont looks like, as if she did want to reveal anything. Its only another Propaganda Show with a hidden Trap.

[Johan]

Theorizer are like ..................

NASA Admits Trimethylaluminum Rocket Dumps in Ionosphere » NASA Admits Trimethylaluminum Rocket Dumps in Ionosphere | GeoengineeringWatch.org

Geoengineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----------------------

Just look to the sky in the out-back, no city, so why would a plane fly a pattern like this:

CHEMTRAILS GEOENGINEERING IN GERMANY 09-01-2013 GERMANIA SCIE CHIMICHE SPUDORATE - YouTube

[Mad Scientist]

How can this be? Everything that Al Gore has been telling us is wrong!

Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA’s Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth’s upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth’s lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA’s own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth’s upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

Almost all ‘heating’ radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2

According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.

“The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet,” write H. Schreuder and J. O’Sullivan for PSI. “[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA’s chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA’s GISS.”

Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time “on science,” and on “drawing attention to [its] implications for young people.”

You can read more details of the new NASA SABER study by visiting:
Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

You can also check out a informative, four-minute video report on the solar storm here:
ScienceCasts: The Surprising Power of a Solar Storm - YouTube

Sources for this article include:

Principia Scientific International

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

ScienceCasts: The Surprising Power of a Solar Storm - YouTube
Learn more: Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere