For your reading pleasure: National Geographic is in on the hoax too!
"For your reading pleasure: National Geographic is in on the hoax too!"
You got that exactly right joj!
How do I know? I have all the data to show and will gladly provide it again for you. Please look at it. The data and indisputable facts are the data and facts. I am blown away at how many very intelligent people that want to believe in catastrophic climate change block out all the authentic data and facts..............and how us so called "deniers" can't get anybody to debate us in public forums or elsewhere.
What does National Geographic show?
1 picture of a barren wasteland with this caption:
"Recent drought off Washington State's Pacific coast has been linked to rising sea temperatures."
Hugh? Global drought has not increased.
How about this to counter their sensationalizing of an isolated picture, representing 1/1,000,000 of the area of the planet in the picture..........the entire planet:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
This image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015.It would be one thing if we were disagreeing about the amount of damage from climate change.
However, they keep ramping up the amount of damage with scarier and scarier stories and warnings and time is running out(even after most of the predictions over the last 2 decades were wrong).
Honest people interested in authentic science adjust their theories so that they line up with the observations/empirical data.
Does the barren wasteland in their headline picture really represent what is happening to our planet?.....or does the picture that I provided of the entire planet, represent what's happening to the planet?
Dishonest people interested in motivating people to take actions based on politics, sensationalize and exaggerate to scare people into acting.
You think that THE National Geographic would never do this?
I've known them to be leading the charge with junk science and fake/exaggerated climate information for almost 2 decades.
Again, don't believe my words or their words................look at the data. It's all there. Since I've been generously posting it for a very long time here, I assume that posting it again will not make a difference for you.
However, I sincerely enjoy opportunities like this as teachable moments..........for those that want to learn, when those that disagree with me post bogus stuff because they found something on the internet that supports their belief sytem on climate change.
The weather/climate in the last 40 years has been the best for life in the last 1,000 years............since the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm. We are headed towards Holocene Climate Optimum temperature levels if this continues for the next century. OPTIMUM not CRISIS.
Here's the proof:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/25818/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/25264/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/25016/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/22904/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/18326/
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/14777/
joj,
If you care to, look over all 7 of those threads, with something like 100 posts and many dozens of sources of empirical data.
I challenge you to find 1 thing wrong with any of those posts.................no, don't run to the internet to find more junk science that says this or that which I always find numerous things wrong with and bust every time.........for once, stop posting the junk science and tell us one thing that I have wrong.
Just one thing please.
Out of 100 posts, can you find one thing wrong?
If you can.............I'll adjust/change it immediately!
metmike
I am thankful you have posted your findings-how refreshiong to read the logic.
Truthfully,I dont think i would be exposed to the facts if you weren t posting the info,
Where would I look not being on a crusade? I fear I would fall victim to the hype since it is mostly what is readily available-so sad. Truly thankyou for doing all that work.
John
Thanks john,
Climate science was hijacked for political agenda because most people are not climate scientistc and almost nobody has climate weather records, the narrative was so easy to sell "we're saving the planet for our children and life on the planet" and there are many trillions of dollars to be had........carbon taxes, research to study it(the govt does not fund research into non problems) and the vast majority of climate scientists work for the government or have their research funded by governments.
The number of scientists that now declare themselves as "climate" scientists has gone thru the roof as this is a field that can generate tremendous attention/importance and funding like no other right now. Scientists are not like a bunch of little Mother Theresa's devoting their lives to an altruistic with little of no financial or prestigeous reward. They are extremely political, have massive ego's and money talks. Not all of them but many of them and most of the ones that control the peer review process for papers.
The sensationalism sells newspapers and generates intest and helps ratings. Ask this, did a story about the least amount of violent tornadoes in history last year, a continuing pattern with the weakening temperature gradient from north to south attract more interest or the hundreds of stories, picking every extreme weather event(that has happened before) as more evidence of MAN MADE climate climate change.........note the one drought in the Pacific Northwest being blamed on climate change by Nat. Geo.
Good weather does not make a good tops news story.
Or the studies speculating that climate change is threatening polar bears made the global warming mascot animal as it gets put on the endangered species list..............but when their numbers, instead greatly increased by 25% since 2005..........we here nothing.
There are dozens of other examples with studies that show butterfly's, honey bees, crops, humans and all good creatures will be harmed by climate change, while ticks and cock roaches and rats and viruses, fungus's and all bad life will thrive from climate change.
How is it that the same exact conditions can be bad for all of good life but be good for all of bad life?
I'll just pick out a couple of absurd things in the paper:
"Out of 5.2 million possible climate futures, carbon emissions must reach zero by 2030 in every country in the world if we are to stay at less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) by 2100 of warming, the target set by the United Nations to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, from rising seas to deadly heat waves."
Again, the only place where a climate crisis exists has been on these global climate models using math equations that they pick to represent the physics that which represents a busted theory. They can change/adjust those equations at any time...............but have not..........to better reflect what is actually happening. Why not? Because models that show we are not headed towards a catastrophe or that show a climate optimum and benefits put these people out of a job or make it much more challenging to get funded.
Traders are pretty good at interpreting lines on graphs. What does this one tell you?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
"Cutting emissions to zero by 2030 to meet the 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) target will be exceptionally difficult, said lead author Jonathan Lamontagne of Tufts University. And there is no path to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit given the constraints used in the paper, he said."
The warming rate has remained at 1.3 deg./century and has been beneficial:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2019 was +0.36 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the January, 2019 value of +0.37 deg. C:
"A new pathway may have opened up: solar geoengineering. High-flying airplanes spraying sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, thereby mimicking gas from volcanoes and reflecting the sun’s heat, could be done safely according to another study in the same issue of Nature Climate Change."
Blocking the sun this way would be a really dumb idea. Not only would it cause plants to have less sun and be less productive...............we are headed towards a climate optimium that requires no actions to avoid.
“Climate science was hijacked for political agend”
Truthfully, what is this political agenda ?
I don’t know if I’ve ever heard it articulated.
Change is not all good or all bad. The latest of several articles. We need to be thinking long term.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2843/new-satellite-based-maps-of-mangrove-heights/
“Climate science was hijacked for political agend”
"Truthfully, what is this political agenda ?
I don’t know if I’ve ever heard it articulated."
Actually mcfarmer, you and me had this exact discussion back in August and after I explained it, your response was:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/10741/
By mcfarmer - Aug. 18, 2018, 1:03 p.m.
"See, that is helpful. I think I can say we are in much more agreement than not. And, I will acknowledge your expertise on the subject and say you are more probably more likely to be right than I on the rest."
I have also mentioned this in a couple of other places but not in a conversation directly with you at those times.
So let me elaborate more here.
After the UN created the IPCC to hijack climate science(read the posts above for the story). The objective has always been to change the world dynamic of, not only economies...........in order to share the wealth and redistribute wealth from the developed/rich countries to the undeveloped/poor countries...........but also having every country united in a global effort, led by the United Nations in a move towards globalization and socialized world government...........with the UN in charge.
This is exactly what the Paris Climate Agreement/Climate Accord is. It would not do a thing to change climate. Think about it. It allows the China and India to increase emissions thru the year 2030 because they are poor countries. Their increases are many times more than everybody elses cuts.
If it was about cutting emissions they would cut. Not only do they get to emit more CO2, they don't contribute money......instead, they GET money from the developed countries like the US.
I went ahead and actually copied more on this from another post used to describe this dynamic.
Maybe I should just start a new thread called: "Climate Accord" to refer to in the future with all this stuff to make it easy to refresh your memories. I completely understand why everybody is forgetting all of it.............when you don't believe it, it goes in one ear and out the other.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/10741/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government Climate Report
By metmike - Nov. 29, 2018, 5:20 p.m.
"the Trump administration has signaled that the country will pull out of international initiatives like the Paris climate accord, aimed at lowering global temperatures, claiming that these treaties have been unfair for the US economy."
I have a copy of the Climate Accord in front of me, on my desk. The agreement allows China to continue to increase CO2 emissions until 2030 and India, claims that it will not make cuts until it receives a trillion dollars from the green climate fund of the Climate Accord............guess who they were expecting to get the money from(and China gets our money under the agreement too).
Even if these countries did makes substantial cuts, the effects on global warming would be tiny. The Climate Accord is not about that. That's a facade. It's a global rebalancing of power and money, using sustainable development principles and equality, with all the worlds countries following the leadership of the United Nations.
I like helping the poor a great deal but the objective in the Accord is to deprive the US of its life blood, fossil fuels to slow its economy and reduce its excessive consumption of natural resources.
Why India Thinks A Trillion-Dollar Price Tag Is Worth Staying In The Paris Climate Accord
THE TRUTH about the Climate Accord:
1. The US has cut its CO2 emissions more than any other country over the last decade.......without a Climate Accord.
2. China now emits double the CO2 emissions as the US does here in 2018 and the Climate Accord allows them to continue to increase their CO2 emissions until the year 2030.
3. The Green Climate Fund is a big joke. It supposedly exists to assist undeveloped countries in adapting to Climate Change. What do the poor countries need to adapt to when the last 40 years have featured the best weather and climate since the Medieval Warm Period, 1000 years ago.........the last time that it was this warm?
Status of Pledges and Contributions made to the Green ClimateFundhttps://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19
Note: The Obama pledge is 30% of the entire worlds pledge to the Green Climate Fund..............why wouldn't the entire world be upset that the US withdrew?Also note: China is not on the list of countries pledging money. The tan colored bar below was the US contribution under Obama. The blue bars are the rest of the world and of course many countries did not contribute at all........instead they get our money. 
edit: I should add that scientists are some of the most politically liberal groups in the country. They are not little Mother Theresa's trying to save the planet that don't vote in elections. They clearly have political bias that lines up strongly to one side:
Here are more links with info related to the Climate Accord and the UN.
"what is the mission of the UN?"
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/19467/
"December 12, 2018 This day in history"
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/19500/
You many think that this just sounds like a big conspiracy theory from the side that disagrees with this agenda. Then ask yourself where did I get it from? What conservative source provided me with this information?
I am not copying from articles or opinions of other people that believe the same thing and using that as evidence. Just like with the weather/climate facts/observations/empirical data, I am using the rock solid facts of what happened and is happening, doing almost all the research myself, as an objective, independent scientist.
I have read the entire Climate Accord and much of what the United Nations has out there, in addition to being a top authority on weather and climate science.
You might wonder why somebody with those credentials is hanging out as the moderator of a forum sharing those unique views.
I have much bigger plans in the future which includes helping some less fortunate people on this planet using this site but this format has provided me an opportunity to share graphically the compelling evidence of the blatant fraud going on right now with regards to catastrophic climate change and the Climate Accord.
The truth is important, especially in a realm that allows me to shed the light of truth on the widespread darkness of deceit in climate science.
Please do take into account that, unlike the climate change alarmists, that have constantly changed and moved the goal posts...............with wrong prediction after wrong prediction and making the future forecasts scarier and scarier to motivate people, using climate models and extreme weather that has always happened in our past, you will find me to be very consistent with all statements for the past decade.
In the 1990's I completely believed the global climate models. Since then, I believe the empirical data/observations over the speculative models...........that have been too warm.
Nothing against models..........I make a living using weather models but we need to make it clear what their limitations are.............and they are being used scientifically inappropriately........for politics.
They are all recorded here over the past 8 months or so. Over 100 posts. Please do try to find a place where I contradict myself or change to say something different without data to support it.
Find something wrong with my data and facts. Find one thing wrong. It's all transparent and nothing has been changed.
If you do find something wrong. I will sincerely look at it, provide an explanation and possibly change it.
What you see displayed here is my personal work/effort doing research on this topic for 20 years(as an atmospheric scientist for 37 years)
In terms of changing the goal posts I would have this observation.
If we divide the groups into climate alarmists, what does the other side wish to be called?
Anyway,
First it was denial, the climate wasn’t changing.
Then yes, the climate was changing but mankind couldn’t have enough influence to be the change agent.
Now we have yes, it’s changing and yes mankind has been responsible for much of it but it’s good.
Not pointing to anyone particular, certainly not Mike, but what of this ? For all I can see Mike has been where he is now for sometime, the change I’m referring to isn’t directed to him.
I just don’t see the money on the change side like I see it on the fossil fuel side. I don’t see the beneficiaries on the green side.
And, the conversation may be mute anyway, we need to have an alternative to fossil fuels at some point.
"I just don’t see the money on the change side like I see it on the fossil fuel side. I don’t see the beneficiaries on the green side."
Trillions in carbon taxes. Hundreds of billions in grants/funding for scientific research because this is top priority science right now.
Trillions going from the developed/rich countries to the undeveloped/poor countries.
Trillions in the green energy arena.
"First it was denial, the climate wasn’t changing.
Then yes, the climate was changing but mankind couldn’t have enough influence to be the change agent.
Now we have yes, it’s changing and yes mankind has been responsible for much of it but it’s good."
I know that's not me but who did/does that represent? What group or person does that represent? I am on top of the views and don't know of many people or groups changing like that. You are just repeating what one side wants you to think the other side's position was and is now.
Please stick with facts and my position vs vague ascertions of things.
You can rationalize that its all a good thing because, in the end, we need an alternate energy source since we will run out of fossil fuels eventually.
Yeah, I would be great with that idea too............if they were selling it like that.
But they are not. My entire problem is that they are selling a lie about climate for an agenda.......hijacking climate science for an agenda..............and lots of money.
I'm an environmentalist and also for developing alternative energy sources that are viable but am vehemently against fraud and the hoax about catastrophic climate change and the non existent climate crisis.
We can't effectively plan for and develop our energy future using good market strategies if the facts we are given are all lies.
This is how the media, like National Geographic and shown here, the New York times as well as CNN and others take a Climate Optimum and greening planet and twist it around, using fake climate science, fake agronomy and fake biology to turn it into a Climate Crisis:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html
NYT: A number of small studies have suggested that humans actually are contributing to an increase in photosynthesis across the globe.
metmike: Many thousands of studies on hundreds of plants(all the plants that I know of) show conclusively that the increase of CO2 from humans is causing massive increases in photosynthetic benefits.
NYT: Plant growth is increasing because of rising carbon dioxide. But plants return carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at night, in a process called respiration.
metmike: So what? It's the amount that stays in the plant that matters, as it turns the carbon in the air into carbon in the plant. That doesn't get returned at night.
NYT: Climate change denialists were quick to jump on Dr. Campbell’s research as proof that increased carbon dioxide is making the world a better place.
metmike: There's that name "denialist" to discredit anybody that has the evidence to show that they're wrong.
NYT: Yes, we now get far more food from each acre of farmland than we did a century ago. But extra carbon dioxide only accounts for a small fraction of the increase. “A 30 percent increase in photosynthesis does not translate into a 30 percent increase in strawberries off the land,” said Dr. Campbell.
metmike: When you green up plants by increasing leaf area/foliage, the leaves collect more sunshine energy that's converted into..............higher yields! Root mass is also much more extensive, which allows plants to access more nutrients in the soil...higher yields!
NYT: “The driving factor has to be the fertilizers, the seed varieties, the irrigation,” Dr. Campbell said.
metmike: Fertilizers? You bet that's doing alot of it. CO2 has been the atmospheric fertilizer contributing to 25% of the increase in crop yields and world food production.
NYT: While photosynthesis does pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, much of that gas goes right back into the air. The reason: At night, the chemical reactions in plants essentially run backward. In a process known as respiration, plants pump out carbon dioxide instead of pulling it in.
metmike: There they go again, trying to make it sound like the amount of CO2 lost at night is almost as much as gained during the day. I'll let them contradict themselves on this in the next statement.
NYT: If plants keep on absorbing only a quarter of our carbon dioxide in the future, then we can expect all these trends to get stronger.
metmike: This last statement is the scientific fact that matters. Them starting and ending the article with 2 statements that tell us that plants release most of their CO2 at night is meant to mislead.
NYT: A number of studies indicate that plants that grow in extra carbon dioxide often end up containing lower concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen, copper and potassium.
metmike: In this case they refer to "a number of studies" which in reality is a small number of studies and earlier, on the thousands of studies on the effects of CO2 on photosynthesis, they called that "a small number of studies"
metmike: The logic here is so messed up it boggles the mind. So should we reduce the CO2 back to 280 ppm from the current 408 ppm to increase 3 micronutrients by up to 10% and have 25% less food and 1 billion people starve to death? But before those billion people died from lack of calories/nutrients, the food that they did get had 10% more of 3 micronutrients.
NYT: If we eat food that lacks nutrients, we become more vulnerable to a host of diseases. Recently, a team of researchers at Stanford University studied how future changes to crops could affect the world’s health. The findings were grim.
metmike: What they completely miss is that if you are getting 25% more of everything, calories, main nutrients and micronutrients, you still come out way ahead, even if you take away 10% of the gains in the micronutrients. What is grim is that 1 billion people(of the 7.6 billion) would starve from 25% crop reductions and world food supply shortages if we went back to the old CO2 levels and old, less optimal climate.
NYT: In Southeast Asia, for example, the researchers estimated that the rate of iron deficiency may rise from 21.8 percent to 27.9 percent by 2050.Deficiencies in iron and other nutrients could make millions of people more vulnerable to diseases including malaria and pneumonia, leading to many premature deaths.
metmike: Again, they are getting 25% MORE of everything. In 3 micronutrients, maybe they are only getting 10% less than that. 25% -10% is still 15% MORE. Many, many more people would die from not enough food, calories and all nutrients with lower CO2 levels. Almost nobody would suffer or die because the much more abundant food had 10% less micronutrients. This is completely warped logic.
NYT: The six warmest years on record all occurred after 2010. The weather has already become more extreme. Sea levels have risen. The oceans are acidifying.
metmike: The reporting of extreme weather is what's unprecedented, not the amount of extreme weather. The last 40 years has featured the best weather/climate since the Medieval Warm Period, that was this warm., 1,000 years ago. What also has occurred during those slightly and beneficially warming 6 years? Record crop yields! Planet greening up. Most life thriving and doing better than it did before climate change.
NYT: Even more remarkably, the plants have been scrubbing the same fraction of carbon dioxide out of the air even as our emissions explode.
metmike: But before, they gave us the impression that most of the CO2 was released at night. Now, they use the term "scrubbing" to describe the affects of plants to take the beneficial gas, CO2 out of the air. Funny how verbiage to describe something tells you alot.
NYT: The weather has already become more extreme. Sea levels have risen. The oceans are acidifying.
metmike: There has been heavier rains and more heat waves but the benefits outweigh the negatives by more than 10 to 1. Just the increase in food production is massive and supporting the life of 1 billion more humans. Sea levels are still increasing around 1 inch/decade, similar to the rate of the past 150 years. The oceans acidifying is complete nonsense. The PH in the oceans should drop slightly but more studies show benefits to this than negatives in the reasonable/expected range by the majority of scientists.
NYT: In other words, if global greening isn’t saving us now, we can’t rely on it to save us in the future.
metmike: Global greening is actually saving us...........to the tune of 25% more food and enough to feed 1 billion more people. With regards to the CO2 and climate...........why do people need saving from a climate optimum? They need saving from the fake climate science and fake biology/agronomy articles published by activist sources trying to mislead us. They need saving from the busted global models using faulty equations to simulate the atmosphere(that have been wrong) for the next 100 years using a speculative theory.
They need saving from gatekeepers that control the false narratives which hide the truth about things like the significance of widespread global greening.
“By metmike - March 16, 2019, 11:31 a.m.
This is how the media, like National Geographic and shown here, the New York times as well as CNN and others take a Climate Optimum and greening planet and twist it around, using fake climate science, fake agronomy and fake biology to turn it into a Climate Crisis:”
But why exactly do they do this ?
mcfarmer,
You keep asking the same questions and I am not just happy to repeat the same answers but thrilled because:
1. They are outstanding questions from an intelligent guy
2. I have the answers and can't repeat them enough for those that missed the first few times in this world of fake climate science news that is entirely controlled by the UN, world governments(with most climate scientists working for them and many being climate activists) and the liberal media(because of the globalized socialism and carbon taxing agenda)........ of the completely bogus message.
So I will cut/paste from earlier in this thread, and refer you to another thread from a couple of days ago to start with, then elaborate.
previous: "Does the barren wasteland in their headline picture really represent what is happening to our planet?.....or does the picture that I provided of the entire planet, represent what's happening to the planet?
Dishonest people interested in motivating people to take actions based on politics, sensationalize and exaggerate to scare people into acting.
You think that THE National Geographic would never do this?
I've known them to be leading the charge with junk science and fake/exaggerated climate information for almost 2 decades."
metmike: The MSM is no longer giving us objective journalism/reporting. They've become biased activists, especially when it comes to climate change. Note this quintessential example of the NYT's article and my obliteration of a dozen wrong statements using facts/data that I have often here. Climate change agenda and liberal agenda goes hand in hand. Globalized socialism is the objective of the catastrophic, manmade climate crisis narrative and the UN created Paris Climate Accord that would do nothing to effect the climate(again, poor countries like China and India get to greatly increase CO2 emissions by MUCH more than the cuts of the rich countries combined............and they get our money too. I have showed this evidence conclusively. This is not me repeating something that some conspiracy theory conservative think tank stated in an article I read. I have read the entire Accord. It's a fact based on me reading the documents/doing the research, just like the other facts provided on weather/climate/science/life here.
Also, the media gets higher ratings from sensationalism. I was a main anchor on television for the local ABC affiliate for 11 years(82-93).
Reporting good weather does not sell papers or attract viewers, nor does reporting good news. Sensationalism does. There was hardly a month that went by, that we were not reminded how important ratings were/are. Not only did our salaries depend on it........our jobs. Low ratings and you are gone. High ratings and when you renew your contract, you negotiate for a big pay raise. This is just a bonus on top of the agenda above that works in tandem to reward them for having this position.
In addition, think about the cause that is being sold here. "Saving the planet" "Saving the human race". Who would not want be an entity that people associate with that objective and message and who would want to be an entity that is seen as against that altruistic motive?
They are using a marketing scheme to portray themselves as representing that idea/goal and those that oppose them as "deniers" of the science blocking their agenda to save the planet and life on it.
mcfarmer,
You asked this question below earlier in this thread that connects with these explanations above. Please scroll up for the explanations/answer and feel free to ask more questions:
“Climate science was hijacked for political agend”
"Truthfully, what is this political agenda ?
I don’t know if I’ve ever heard it articulated."
The climate crisis part of climate change is 100% fake! They have re defined the actual climate optimum which is occurring and turned it into a climate crisis by using articles like the one that I just showed you from the NYTs.
I know that it's almost impossible for most people to believe this has happened on a global scale and completely impossible for many to believe any of it........and they won't.
I have studied this for 20 years as an independent, objective atmospheric scientist(for 37 years) and environmentalist looking only for the truth based on authentic science. The work here is entirely mine. You will find the work represents this entirely.
Alex McCallum was one of the most liberal guys around..........and my friend. He was a strong believer in catastrophic man made climate change. After my many posts, he completely reversed that position. Those here at the old forum know that he created a section in the MarketForum library called "Climate Talk" that had all my posts on climate on display for others to read and to refer back to.
Again, find anything in my 100+ posts which have all the data/facts/evidence to show something that you think needs adjusting and I'll look at it, providing a legit explanation.......or if I can't will adjust it appropriately.
mcfarmer,
I can tell that you're a smart guy and objective enough to recognize facts as facts, even if they contradict something that you thought that you knew because its been repeated for 15 years from what seems like reputable sourcesthat you trusted.
You also know me pretty well by now and what my mission is in life.
Truth means everything.
Authentic science means everything.
Making the world a better place means everything.
I've not exaggerated my position to make the other sides position look more extreme. My position on the science is really not a position in some ways(my explanations for why the other side acts this way is)
Is the belief in the law of gravity a position?
Is the belief that 2+2=4 a position?
The planet greening up and why is not a position..........its a rock solid fact based on empirically measured data and the law of photosynthesis.
The best weather and climate for life in the 1,000 years is just a fact too. This is my area of expertise.
Climate model projections for the next 100 years are just simulations using mathematical equations that the humans pick..............have control of based on their representation of what they think will happen.
The models are not empirical data or observations, they just tell us what the climate modelers think will happen. They have been wrong(too warm for 20 years but still get used).
Some models have been adjusted a bit but not enough. Others, including those telling us that we have 12 years left before the planet is lost, are a sign of this being purely political have taken the complete opposite approach. Go in the complete opposite direction and use models that predict extreme, impossible scenario's that contradict what has been happenening in the real world and sell it for a political agenda.
I've been used to this for 20 years but the way they are using children now really ticks me off.
BTW, in the 1990's, when man made climate change was first becoming a major topic, I BELIEVED strongly in the climate models and theory, almost exactly the way it was presented. The warming was accelerating in the 1990's and there was no legit reason to NOT believe.
Then, after the 1990's and for the last 20 years, we see that this acceleration was just brief..............even as the CO2 has accelerated higher. I changed my tune because the correlation was obviously not entirely causation in the 1990's
20 years of a slowdown (1998-2018)and the cooling in the 40's-70's obviously means there is much more too it.
Basing a theory and model equations on a brief warming spurt or assigning zero weighting to natural cycles during a solar grand maximum century (assuming all the warming had to be humans) is not authentic science.
Also,
If somebody is objective, then they tell both sides. Why is one side not telling us about the many benefits and as shown earlier in this thread, when the benefits have overwhelming evidence(greening planet/record crops) they write articles titled like: