Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)

[JohnLarue]

Portland School Board Bans Books That Question Climate Cult Dogma

The Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution this week that bans textbooks and other teaching materials that deny climate change exists or cast doubt on whether humans are to blame.

The resolution, introduced by school board member Mike Rosen, also directs the superintendent and staff to develop a plan for offering “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice” in all Portland public schools, the Portland Tribune reported.

“It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux said during board testimony Tuesday. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”

Bill Bigelow, editor of the ReThinking Schools online magazine and co-author of a textbook on environmental education, worked with several environmental groups to present the resolution, the Tribune reported.

“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” Mr. Bigelow said. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”

Bill Bigelow, editor of the ReThinking Schools online magazine and co-author of a textbook on environmental education, worked with several environmental groups to present the resolution, the Tribune reported.

“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” Mr. Bigelow said. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/20/oregon-school-board-bans-books-that-question-clima/

I wonder what Galileo would think of such censorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope, among them, the Galilean moons of Jupiter. With these observations and additional observations that followed, such as the phases of Venus, he promoted the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543. Galileo's discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.[2]

Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which implicitly defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642

Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

On Ignore: FrankFooter

 

[Frankfooter]

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

On Ignore: FrankFooter

Hey, you're back!
bummer.

Check this source for science that stands up to questioning, opposing views and debate.
https://www.ipcc.ch/

Then show us your counter theory and the full science behind it.
Lets see this scientific debate go!

 

[canada-man]

DailyKos: It’s OK for Climate Alarmists to Make Things Up Out of Thin Air


The leftist website Daily Kos published an article yesterday claiming climate alarmists are more scientifically credible when they make things up out of thin air – while presenting no supporting scientific facts or evidence – than when climate realists cite numerous datasets and peer-reviewed studies that support their claims. Making stuff up out of thin air is acceptable, honorable, and compelling, according to DailyKos, if you do it in the name of climate alarmism.

Earlier this week, we published an article here at Climate Realism calling attention to dubious claims made by prominent climate alarmist Katharine Hayhoe in her public presentations to Christian groups. We specifically noted that Hayhoe uses an apparently self-made chart in her presentations that shows global temperatures steadily and monotonously declining, with almost no variations, for nearly 6,000 years. Hayhoe’s chart, reproduced below, then shows, at the end of the 6,000 years of steady cooling, an enormous temperature spike in the 20th century that completely overwhelms the previous 6,000 years of steady cooling.



Our Climate Realism article then showed what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself presented in its very first climate report – published in 1990 and confirmed by multiple studies since (see, for example, pg. 14 here) – in which scientists, the IPCC, and multiple datasets and peer-reviewed studies agreed that scientific evidence shows temperatures have varied frequently and considerably throughout the past 6,000 years. The IPCC chart, reproduced below, also showed temperatures currently remain cooler than was the case during most of the past 6,000 years.



As we pointed out in the Climate Realism article, Hayhoe provides no sources or supporting data to support her claim that the IPCC, established science, and multiple supporting studies are all wrong. She merely shows her own chart in public presentations and then uses her highly suspicious chart to support her claim that humans are creating an unprecedented and existential climate crisis.

DailyKos yesterday published an article childishly attacking the Climate Realism article. The DailyKos article never cited any scientific evidence, data, or studies to support Hayhoe’s chart. Instead, the article claimed, “Not be outdumb’d, Heartland’s James Taylor thought it would be clever to contrast a chart Dr. Hayhoe uses with one from the very first IPCC report, as though a graph from 1990 is somehow more accurate than something produced with the benefit of an additional thirty years of research.” Of course, the only presented “thirty years of research” is Katharine Hayhoe’s self-serving, self-presented chart for which she provides no documentary evidence.

So, the alarmist argument is that if a climate alarmist simply makes up a chart or an argument out of thin air, that chart or argument is more credible than factually documented, evidentiary-based science that has been well established and that has remained in effect for many, many years. By that logic:

Climate alarmists can – and likely will – claim without any supporting evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth, because Copernicus’ theory is “old science” demonstrated more than 400 years ago.
Climate alarmists can – and likely will – claim without any supporting evidence that the Earth is flat, because it has been 500 years since Magellan circumnavigated the Earth.
Climate alarmists can – and likely will – claim without any supporting evidence that the Moon landing never happened, because 50 years have passed since scientists and astronauts accomplished and documented the feat.

Sorry, Katharine Hayhoe and DailyKos, making stuff up out of thin air is not more scientifically compelling than long-established scientific knowledge that is well-sourced, well-cited, and confirmed multiple times since with additional scientific data and studies.

https://climaterealism.com/2020/06/...-alarmists-to-make-things-up-out-of-thin-air/

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...r-Ancient-Attacks-Against-Dr-Katharine-Hayhoe

 

[JohnLarue]

Climate science is driven by activists, no scientist worth his / her salt would allow a poltical agenda to dictate the scientific conclusions. Yet this has happened
Any scientist attempting to present an opposing view is blackballed, intimidated and has his funding cut off.
Roger Pielke crossed up the activitists when he testified truthfully that there was no credible evidence CO2 cause extreme weather
Afterwards .his contract was not renewed, the activists ensured he could not get work and threatened event organizers who had booked him to speak.
he had to switch careers

The peer review process & the IPCC are controlled by activists and are corrupt

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-ipcc/

The IPCC was created in 1988 largely due to the efforts of Maurice Strong, a billionaire and self-confessed socialist, as part of a larger campaign to justify giving the United Nations the authority to tax businesses in developed countries and redistribute trillions of dollars a year to developing nations. Strong had previously succeeded in bringing about the creation of the UN Environment Programme in 1972 and served as its first executive director. The IPCC is a joint project of that entity and the World Meteorological Organization.

(Strong was subsequently implicated in corruption surrounding the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program and has resigned from his UN positions. According to John Izzard writing for the Australian publication Quadrant Online, <1> “Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honours he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman.”<1>)

Strong and his allies at the UN gave the IPCC a very narrow brief by defining climate change in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 1.2, as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” IPCC’s mandate is not to study climate change “in the round,” or to look at natural as well as man-made influences on climate. It is to specifically find and report a human impact on climate, and thereby make a scientific case for the adoption of national and international policies that would supposedly reduce that impact.

The IPCC is also designed to put political leaders and bureaucrats rather than scientists in control of the research project. It is a membership organization composed of governments, not scientists. The governments that created the IPCC fund it, staff it, select the scientists who get to participate, and revise and rewrite the reports after the scientists have concluded their work. Obviously, this is not how a real scientific organization operates.

The IPCC’s first report, released in 1990, admitted that observed climate change was probably due to natural rather than human causes. However, every report since then has claimed with rising certainty that there is a “discernable human impact” on the climate and that steps must be taken to avoid a global climate crisis. There is ample evidence that this level of alarmism and asserted confidence is fueled by political considerations rather than actual science.

For example, in 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of the world’s most prominent and respected physicists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: <2>“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

As for peer review
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2331832

EMAIL

July 8, 2004. From Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

“The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

THE CONTEXT

The “garbage” report referred to a report done by climate-change skeptics Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick that Mr. Jones said he did not want in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Mr. Jones also referred to another non-peer-reviewed report that was to be released showing scientists Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai -- who disputed global warming -- were wrong. However, he told Mr. Mann the author did not word the report very strongly because he was close to one of the scientists. He said he was encouraging the author to submit it to other climate-related journals.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

This is quickly turning into the most expensive scientific (propaganda) mistakes of all time


On Ignore: FrankFooter

 

[Frankfooter]

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

On Ignore: FrankFooter

True.

That's why the theory of anthropomorphic climate change summarized by the IPCC stands up.
Its a full theory with supporting papers from thousands of scientists over decades of research, all peer reviewed (where all opposing ideas and questions are encouraged) and published.

larue, where is your theory that explains the warming of earth's climate?
Do you have a theory that can ' stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate'?

 

[Frankfooter]

Climate science is driven by activists, no scientist worth his / her salt would allow a poltical agenda to dictate the scientific conclusions. Yet this has happened

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-ipcc/

Here's the contact information of your website.
The Heartland Institute
3939 North Wilke Road
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004
312/377-4000
Email Us

Would you like to tell us about whether or not the Heartland Institute is a scientific research organization or a political lobby group and who funds it?

 

[canada-man]

Good move, teach kids science not anti-science denier crap.

franky supports censorship remember this next time he complain about censorship of posts and ideas he support

 

[JohnLarue]

franky supports censorship remember this next time he complain about censorship of posts and ideas he support

Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

Here is a good example of the pseudo science used by Global Warming Alarmists

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9150-2/figures/1

Notice the amount of energy they assign to downwelling of radiation from greenhouse gases 333 Watts/ meter squared
It is greater than the 161 Watts / meter squared of energy incoming from the sun absorbed by the surface (more than double the amount)

??? WTF ??? This is physically impossible as the sun is the source of all of the energy and most definatly the orginal source for any radiative thermal transfer , yet somehow they are depicting the greenhouse gases direct more energy to the surface than the sun does.
the first law of thermodynamics states "that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system" Where does the extra energy (333- 161) = 172 Watts/ meter squared come from?

Note the energy emitted by the earths surface (Surface radiation) is 396 Watts/ meter squared. Again this is also greater ( more than double) than the 161 Watts / meter squared of energy incoming from the sun absorbed by the surface.

It is also greater than the 341 Watts/ Meter squared of the total incoming solar radiation energy from the sun.
The sun is the only soucre for all the energy, yet they have the earth surface emitting more than the total incoming from the sun
Again where did the extra energy come from?


The second law implies the net flow of heat is from the warmer object to the colder object , until a thermal equilibrium is achieved. The atmosphere is definitely cooler than the earths surface and always is, yet they have the atmosphere warming the surface & to a greater extent than the sun warms the surface.

Pure garbage being passed off as science

 

[Frankfooter]

franky supports censorship remember this next time he complain about censorship of posts and ideas he support

How is it censorship to only teach kids science and not propaganda?

 

[Frankfooter]

Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

Here is a good example of the pseudo science used by Global Warming Alarmists

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9150-2/figures/1

Notice the amount of energy they assign to downwelling of radiation from greenhouse gases 333 Watts/ meter squared
It is greater than the 161 Watts / meter squared of energy incoming from the sun absorbed by the surface (more than double the amount)

??? WTF ??? This is physically impossible as the sun is the source of all of the energy and most definatly the orginal source for any radiative thermal transfer , yet somehow they are depicting the greenhouse gases direct more energy to the surface than the sun does.
the first law of thermodynamics states "that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system" Where does the extra energy (333- 161) = 172 Watts/ meter squared come from?

Note the energy emitted by the earths surface (Surface radiation) is 396 Watts/ meter squared. Again this is also greater ( more than double) than the 161 Watts / meter squared of energy incoming from the sun absorbed by the surface.

It is also greater than the 341 Watts/ Meter squared of the total incoming solar radiation energy from the sun.
The sun is the only soucre for all the energy, yet they have the earth surface emitting more than the total incoming from the sun
Again where did the extra energy come from?


The second law implies the net flow of heat is from the warmer object to the colder object , until a thermal equilibrium is achieved. The atmosphere is definitely cooler than the earths surface and always is, yet they have the atmosphere warming the surface & to a greater extent than the sun warms the surface.

Pure garbage being passed off as science

You really aren't very good at this, are you larue?
341.3 W m2 in and 340.4 W m2 out.

Net gain of 0.9 W m2

If you can't understand a chart made for high school science, what are you doing in this debate?
You are the Dunning Kruger king.

 

[canada-man]

This Date In 1925




https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1925/06/06/issue.html

 

[JohnLarue]

here's a little graphic illustration how CO2 is a bit player in the greenhouse warming effect
The dominate greenhouse gas is water vapor,dominate by orders of magnitude
A fact which has been downplayed or purposely omitted by the alarmists and sadly by climate science

Independently CO2 absorbs at approximately 16% of the available Infrared frequencies. More importantly is almost complete absence of absorption in the all important "Escape window" frequencies
Water vapor absorbs @ many many more frequencies and absorbs at almost all the frequencies that CO2 does, all the while being 20 to 40 more abundant in the atmosphere.

Note the blue shaded "escape window". According to the greenhouse gas theory, this window allows infrared radiation to escape the atmosphere & without this window the planet would warm up a lot
Note Co2 absorbing frequency @ 15 micrometers is a long ail bit player of the distribution

The kicker is as temperature increases, the absorption frequencies of the curve shifts to the left, further reducing CO2's bit player contribution. Natures safety value. A truly remarkable and inspiring observation

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

This is quickly turning into the most expensive scientific (propaganda) mistakes of all time


On Ignore: FrankFooter

 

[Frankfooter]

Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

Here is a good example of the pseudo science used by Global Warming Alarmists

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9150-2/figures/1

Pure garbage being passed off as science
On Ignore: science

larue, still can't answer to the basics, can you?
You really aren't very good at this, are you larue?
341.3 W m2 in and 340.4 W m2 out.

Net gain of 0.9 W m2

If you can't understand a chart made for high school science, what are you doing in this debate?
You are the Dunning Kruger king.

 

[Frankfooter]

here's a little graphic illustration how CO2 is a bit player in the greenhouse warming effect
The dominate greenhouse gas is water vapor,dominate by orders of magnitude
A fact which has been downplayed or purposely omitted by the alarmists and sadly by climate science

On Ignore: science

From the IPCC.

Ozone and stratospheric water vapour contribute substantially
to RF.

Blatantly wrong again.

 

[canada-man]

Inconvenient Truths: Gore Proven Spectacularly Wrong On Glacier National Park

In his 2006 book, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore asserted there would be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2012.

“Our own Glacier National Park will soon need to be renamed, ‘the park formerly known as Glacier,’” Gore wrote.

Here in 2020, however, glaciers remain in abundance in the Park. Call this another Al Gore prediction that spectacularly failed.

On page 47 of his book, Gore writes, “I climbed to the top of the bigger glacier in this park with one of my daughters in 1997 and heard from the scientists who accompanied us that within 15 years all of the glaciers throughout the park will likely be gone.”

Yet, Caitlyn Florentine, a research physical scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, told Montana Public Radio earlier this year that 26 named glaciers continue to exist in Glacier National Park, eight years after Gore’s no-glacier deadline.

Gore’s assertion that the glaciers would be gone by 2012 wasn’t the only alarmist prediction to be proven wrong.

The National Park Service previously put up signs claiming all the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Earlier this year, the Park Service attempted to remove and replace the signs without anybody noticing. People noticed.

“Never put a time limit on your doomsday predictions,” columnist James Delingpole observed, commenting on the Park Service’s stealth sign-replacement program.

In perhaps the most telling example of climate alarmists’ lack of either credibility or integrity, the website GlacierHub acknowledged the Park Service’s failed 2020 prediction under the subhead, “Climate denialists pounce.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The National Park Service put up propaganda signs all over Glacier National Park – at taxpayer expense – claiming the Park would have no more glaciers by 2020.

Climate Realists questioned the prediction from the very beginning and were called science “deniers” for doing so.

The deadline passed, the Park Service was proven wrong, and Climate Realists were proven right. Alarmists respond by calling the vindicated Climate Realists science “denialists.”

Columbia University’s Earth Institute is rewarding GlacierHub, by the way, by inviting GlacierHub to host its website to the Columbia University Earth Institute website. Ethical, objective, sound science in action.

Either way, a loss of all glaciers by 2012 in Glacier National Park is yet another alarmist prediction that Al Gore got spectacularly wrong.

We at Climate Realism expect a full correction and an apology from Gore very soon and will report on it when it comes.

https://climaterealism.com/2020/06/...spectacularly-wrong-on-glacier-national-park/

 

[Frankfooter]

Inconvenient Truths: Gore Proven Spectacularly Wrong On Glacier National Park

https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-glaciers.htm

 

[canada-man]

The BBC is astonished by 30C temperatures in the Arctic near Scandinavia.



During the summer of 1927, temperatures over 32C were persistent in that same region.




Children were sunbathing near the North Pole.



During June, the Arctic receives more solar radiation than any place else on Earth. Warm temperatures there this time of year are not surprising.




If the Earth’s axis of rotation were vertical with respect to the path of its orbit around the Sun, the size of the heating imbalance between equator and the poles would be the same year round, and the seasons we experience would not occur. Instead Earth’s axis is tilted off vertical by about 23 degrees. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the tilt causes one hemisphere and then the other to receive more direct sunlight and to have longer days.

The total energy received each day at the top of the atmosphere depends on latitude. The highest daily amounts of incoming energy (pale pink) occur at high latitudes in summer, when days are long, rather than at the equator. In winter, some polar latitudes receive no light at all (black). The Southern Hemisphere receives more energy during December (southern summer) than the Northern Hemisphere does in June (northern summer) because Earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle and Earth is slightly closer to the Sun during that part of its orbit. Total energy received ranges from 0 (during polar winter) to about 50 (during polar summer) megajoules per square meter per day.

 

[Frankfooter]

The BBC is astonished by 30C temperatures in the Arctic near Scandinavia.

You are claiming this is normal?

 

[canada-man]

Record-Breaking Gains Continue Across Greenland Ice Sheet — MSM Silent

The month of June is breaking records across the Greenland ice sheet, and not records for warmth and melt –as the mainstream media have trained you to expect– but new benchmarks for COLD and GAINS.

The SMB gains occurring right now across Greenland are truly astonishing.

Data-driven FACTS reveal vast regions to the south have been GAINING RECORD/NEAR-RECORD LEVELS of snow & ice all month.

Never before in June has the Greenland ice sheet grown by more than 4 Gigatons in a single day (since 1981 when DMI records began), but now the past week has gone and delivered two such days — June 3, and now yesterday, June 10.

In fact, yesterday’s gains actually neared 5 Gts — you can see from the chart below how anomalous that gain is for the time of year:

https://electroverse.net/astonishing-record-breaking-gains-continue-across-the-greenland-ice-sheet/

 

[Frankfooter]

Record-Breaking Gains Continue Across Greenland Ice Sheet — MSM Silent

Global temperatures for May 2020.