so, who worries about the farce manmade goober warning? haha

[calfoxwc]

of course it's a political ploy - a liberal redistribution of OUR wealth, to

those poor countries that would love to have big monies...

 

and then their money runs out again....and again....

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/212654/terrorism-fears-drive-avoid-crowds.aspx

 

[MLD Woody]

You realize you're making fun of the left for using the emotion of fear (of climate change) when fear is a large portion of how the right controls you. Right?

 

(One more backed by science than the other)

[calfoxwc]

you realize that makes no sense, right? just an emotional knee-jerkie auto-reflex sombeitch response?

 

so you admit you are controlled by the left, and in good marxist manner, you ascribe to others about

what you do yourself, Right?

 

(science that contradicts science means there is no legit "truth")

[MLD Woody]

A virtual consensus of experts in the field science vs conservative funded think tank, usually has giant holes in it science

 

A conclusion that is created from the results of science vs the science that is created to back a predetermined conclusion.

 

 

I know you won't get any of this. I know you don't realize how you're just putty in their hands. Your political party / group is driving all of your beliefs. The fact you can go after others for being controlled by a political party is absolutely hilarious.

 

 

I referred to the fears the right uses to drive their base. Terrorism. Illegal immigrants. Gay agenda. Deep state. Etc

 

It is the same playbook you're attacking the left for. You're just too blind to see it.

[calfoxwc]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/2/#7624835d08e7

 

"Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position."

 

"The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false."

 

The variety of opinion can be illustrated by one graph from the 2013 repeat of the Bray and von Storch survey showing the degree of belief that recent or future climate change is due to or will be caused by human activity. A value of 1 indicates not convinced and a value of 7 is very much convinced. The top three values add to 81%, roughly in the range of several other surveys.

[calfoxwc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• David Bellamy, botanist.^{[18][19][20][21]}
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.^[22][23]
• Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.^[24][25]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.^{[26][27][28][29]}
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.^[30][31]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).^[32]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.^[33][34]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.^{[35][36][37][38]}
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.^{[39][40][41][42][43][44][45]}
• Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.^[46][47]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.^[48][49][50]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).^[51][52]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.^[53][54]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.^[55][56]
• Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.^[57]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.^{[58][59][60][61]}
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.^[62]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.^[63][64]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.^[65][66]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.^[67][68]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.^[69][70]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.^[71][72]

[calfoxwc]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.^[73]

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences^[74][75]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[76][77][78]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg^[79][80][81]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[82][83]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland^[84][85]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester^[86][87]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University^[88][89]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University^[90][91]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo^[92][93]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[94][95]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology^[96][97]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware^[98][99]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri^[100][101]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa^[102][103]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[104][105]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.^[106][107]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego^[108][109]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado^[110][111]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University^{[112][113][114]}
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo^[115][116]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem^[117][118]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia^{[119][120][121][122]}
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics^[123][124]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville^[125][126]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center^[127][128]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University^[129][130]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa^[131][132]

[calfoxwc]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.^[133][134]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).^[135][136]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.^[137][138]
• Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.^[139][140]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.^{[141][142][143]}
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.^[144][145]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.^[146][147]
• Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division ^[148][149]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes^[150][151]
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change^[152][153]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.^[154][155]
• Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.^[156]

[calfoxwc]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

• Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior^{[157][158][159]}
• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change ^[160][161]
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University^[162][163]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia^[164][165]

[calfoxwc]

Deceased scientists

These scientists have published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

• August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming^[166]
• Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.^[167]
• Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University^[168][169]
• William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University^[170][171]
• Yuri Izrael (1930-2014), former Chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former Director, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); Vice-Chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.^{[172][173][174]}
• Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute^{[175][176][177]}
• Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.^[178]
• Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.^[167][179]

[calfoxwc]

http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-the-scientific-consensus-global-warming-affects-american-business-and

 

Abstract: The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus. The much-heralded 2007 United Nations report on greenhouse gas emissions has served as a catalyst for lawmakers to burden traditional energy sources with regulations in favor of so-called clean energy. The private sector has begun to “chase” these policies, shaping business decisions to align with policies preferred by politicians, not the market or the public.

[calfoxwc]

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

 

yep. "virtual consensus" is bogus.

 

repeat a falsehood a bijillion times, it is still not true. You really have to read this article.

 

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues

 

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

[calfoxwc]

A virtual consensus of experts in the field science vs conservative funded think tank, usually has giant holes in it science
A conclusion that is created from the results of science vs the science that is created to back a predetermined conclusion.
I know you won't get any of this. I know you don't realize how you're just putty in their hands. Your political party / group is driving all of your beliefs. The fact you can go after others for being controlled by a political party is absolutely hilarious.
I referred to the fears the right uses to drive their base. Terrorism. Illegal immigrants. Gay agenda. Deep state. Etc
It is the same playbook you're attacking the left for. You're just too blind to see it.

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

See? You start bashing me because I disagree with your over global nonsense bs.

 

That is what makes you a woodypeckerhead. You don't know jack, birdbrain. I was anti-mmgw before it was cool. I don't really

have a political party, I just see only one legit American political party and that is the reps, for better or worse.

 

Anyone who thinks terrorism and illegal immigration isn't any problem is really dense and treading water in Egypt.

There is no playbook, you don't know what you are talking about, you are wrong, and you lash out with your arrogant little

quips and putdowns to try to feel like you are superior. Mebbe that works for you...but I think it doesn't work for anybody else,

just a hunch.

[calfoxwc]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/

 

An Inconvenient Truth: Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies along Sandy’s Track Haven’t Warmed in 70+ Years

[calfoxwc]

https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/environmentalism-conservancy-or-governance/

 

"Later on, in the late twentieth century, there was much talk about entering a new ice age. Global cooling was the ‘mot du jour.’ When an increase in average temperature was noticed, the dialogue quickly shifted to global warming. The term ‘global warming’ had its problems, too. When the warming trend flattened, the term ‘climate change’ was substituted. Indeed, there has been no noticeable warming in the past eighteen+ years and predictions are now calling for a period of gradual cooling. Kooky!"

 

Many instances of deliberate manipulation of data can be found within the topic of climate change. Graphs have been smoothed, and data has been left off (see the hockey-stick chart for an example.) Cherry-picking data as well as selecting ‘useful’ starting points for many graphs have led to erroneous assumptions by the lay-reader. Entire movies have been made by otherwise reputable people which contain no good science whatsoever, yet claim science as the foundation thereof and have continued through the urban legend stage of disseminating bad information to a majority of viewers who have no other means of discerning that which is true from that which is utterly fabricated. The movie in question is “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore. As with the IPCC and its models, none of the dire predictions made in that abhorrent piece of mis-information have come to pass. However, people still continue to quote it and pass it off as truth. It is better described as propaganda. But propaganda has a purpose in its message; it has a goal in sight. What is the goal of scaring millions of people into thinking that something which is not happening, is? More on this later.

 

 

rom a depth of 30 metres in all the oceans. This represents almost all of the atmospheric content.

An increase in carbon dioxide would help build up the atmosphere which would then, in turn, heat the planet. But this is on a planet with no atmosphere at all, so the effects of any greenhouse agent would by magnified. Nevertheless, once plants could take hold, they would need high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere simply to survive. Plants on Earth start to die when carbon dioxide levels dip below 150ppm.

This fact begs the question of why Bill Gates wants carbon dioxide levels at zero (27:42.) What he says between 3:53 and 4:26 is alarming.

“Probably one of these numbers is gonna’ hafta’ get pretty near to zero.” Well for the equation to equal zero on the left, only one value on the right can make this work: population (P) because people (and animals) exhale carbon dioxide. If we assume that this is not what he meant, the only other variable which could bring carbon dioxide ‘near’ zero would be Carbon per unit energy (C.) However, this assumes absolutely no oil, gas, coal, or wood burning anywhere in the world. This would mean replacing 93% of the energy resources used today. The only way to do that would be nuclear. Thorium salts, anyone?

But what he says between 4:30 and 4:46 is truly abhorrent.

Speaking about the population reaching nine billion, “Now if we do a really good job on vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps ten or fifteen per cent.”

He is very clearly talking about mandating medical intervention in some of the poorest regions in the world in order to control their populations, like a herd. Not many people know this, but his father was a noted eugenicist and the head of Planned Parenthood. Gates himself espoused Malthusian beliefs, and though he says his views have changed, his actions would indicate otherwise.

The above is mentioned here because this is the discourse which people are using to determine policy in the climate saga. Influential people at the top of society are using their position to formulate the plans for us all.

It is notable that a great number of climate alarmists also happen to be proponents of population reduction.

 

We do not need GMO seed to feed the world. Monsanto investors need it to feed their families. Bill Gates is heavily invested in Monsanto, by the way.

 

Lastly: A Sensitive Matter – How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news about global warming.

Doubters, skeptics, deniers, call us what you will. We harbour no ill intent towards our brothers and sisters on this planet. We will have to live here, too. We recycle, we try not to pollute, we like to keep our neighbourhoods clean and our children safe, just as much as alarmists do. We do not deny that there is change; we do not leave closed the possibility of some action towards stabilizing our ecosystems. We just want to see definite non-model based conclusions. Thirty thousand of the world’s best scientific minds want that as well. If it comes, they will gladly change their views to help us all cope with the impending disaster. That is what scientists do; they change their opinions to match the facts. They do not, however, change the facts in order to match their opinions.

Two things need to be understood with regards to the secretive agreements being made in the name of climate science:

1. There has been much debate in the US about public confiscation of firearms. Whether your opinion on this is pro or con, there is a larger issue at stake. With suppression of national sovereignty, it is not only the people who will be disarmed; these agreements go one step further. The UN not only wants to remove guns from the public, it wants to remove armies from sovereign states. What would the outcome be in Syria at the moment if they had no national defense force? ISIS would have wiped them all out by now. Changes to any nation’s policy, constitution, or laws based on external cultural or moral influence would be unimpeded. What would happen to Israel if it had to rely on UN peacekeepers? Remember Rwanda?
2. There needs to be a seccession clause added to any international agreement which overrides national sovereignty. Future generations must not be punished for rash or ill-informed decisions made by present governments.

“For the fate of Charles the First hath only made kings more subtle – not more just.”

-Thomas Paine

If you only click one link in this entire article, make it the following:

Chistopher Monckton Keynote – ICCC9 July 9, 2014 (47:11)

Start at the 20:00 mark if you don’t have much time. In this video, Lord Christopher Monckton lays bare the language of the agreements reached at several climate summits demonstrating the true intent behind these schemes. He then goes on to suggest some very positive actions which we all can take in order to guarantee legitimacy and transparency in these international tribunals governed by non-elected bodies accountable only to their own interests. With the COP-21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris quickly upon us (November 30 to December 11, 2015) there is precious little time to act.

As you will very clearly see by the links provided below, there is no consensus on climate change. The ‘97% consensus’ is a fabrication based on a misrepresentation of fact.

A petition has been signed by over 31,000 scientists including over 9,000 PhDs (16:07) roughly stating that any warming which may occur is not primarily caused by human activity and is not catastrophic for the earth, its ecosystems, or for mankind.

Inform Yourselves with these Research Links and Search Engine Terms

Most of the Wikipedia links provided in this article display considerable bias in refering to these scientists as ‘deniers’ and for the fact that the prevailing view there is that of alarmism.

Dr. Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific ‘consensus’ about climate change and what he has called “climate alarmism.”

Dr. Patrick J. (“Pat”) Michaels (born February 15, 1950) is an American climatologist. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. Until 2007 he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980. A self-described skeptic on the issue of global warming, he is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. He has written a number of books and papers on climate change…

Dr. Timothy Francis “Tim” Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a Canadian geographer and historical climatologist, best known for his public opposition to the scientific consensus in the global warming controversy. A retired professor, he taught in the department of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until 1996^. Ball has worked with the Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, and is a research fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Lord Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British public speaker and hereditary peer. He is known for his work as a journalist, Conservative political advisor, UKIP political candidate, and for his invention of the mathematical puzzle Eternity. Early on in his public speaking career topics centred on his mathematical puzzle and conservative politics. In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention due to his advocacy of climate change denial, and views on the European Union, and social policy.

Dr. Christopher Essex is Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Applied Mathematics at The University of Western Ontario. He is a former director of its Theoretical Physics Program. Dr. Essex’s work also includes applications of dynamical systems theory, such as chaos cryptography, and recently, the limits of modelling and computation, among other applications of mathematics. By invitation, he has organized and participated in meetings held in Erice, Sicily of the World Federation of Scientists (WFS), which is based out of CERN. Professor Essex has co-chaired sessions there with Antonino Zichichi and Nobel Laureate T.D. Lee and he has recently become Chair of the WFS’s Permanent Monitoring Panel for Climate. Dr. Essex held an NSERC postdoctoral fellowship from 1982-84 at the Canadian Climate Centre. He has taught at the UNESCO advanced school in Udine, Italy. He was first appointed to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada in 2007 and is now in his second term. Former NSERC postdoc at the Canadian Climate Centre’s Numerical Modelling Division (GCM) London, Ontario. He was an author of the Fraser Institute’s 2007 “Independent Summary for Policymakers”, and a 2002 book titled Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming (co-authored by Ross McKitrick.) was a recipient of the Donner Prize in 2002 (given annually for the best books on Canadian public policy.) The book was also a finalist for the 2002 Canadian Science Writers Book Award.

Dr. Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award.

The Right Climate Stuff team is a team of NASA scientists who contend (and substantiate their contentions) that AGW is not catastrophic and that the IPCC’s data is flawed. Includes Dr. Hal Doiron.

Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon (born 1966) is a solar physicist whose current research interest is solar influences on the Earth’s climate. Soon is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is also a receiving editor for the Elsevier journal New Astronomy. Soon co-authored The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun–Earth Connection with Steven H. Yaskell.

Dr. Freeman John Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) is an English-born American theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Dr. Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. His claim of being one of the co-founders of Greenpeace is currently disputed but he was listed by Greenpeace International as one of five founders as recently as 2005. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. He was a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986.

Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an American blogger who runs Watts Up With That?, a popular climate change denial blog that opposes the scientific consensus on climate change. A former television meteorologist and current radio meteorologist, he is also founder of the Surface Stations project, a volunteer initiative to document the condition of U.S. weather stations.

Dane Wigington has an extensive background in solar energy. He is a former employee of Bechtel Power Corp. and was a licensed contractor in California and Arizona. His personal residence was featured in a cover article on the world’s largest renewable energy magazine, Home Power. He owns a large wildlife preserve next to Lake Shasta in Northern California. Dane focused his efforts and energy on the geoengineering issue when he began to lose very significant amounts of solar uptake due to ever-increasing “solar obscuration” caused from the aircraft spraying as he also noted significant decline in forest health and began testing and research into the geoengineering issue about a decade ago.

Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) [Ed- not to be confused with the ICCCH]

ICCC 9 videos (click on ‘videos’ in search engine options)

ICCC 10 videos (click on ‘videos’ in search engine options)

WattsUpWithThat – “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change.”

WattsUpWithThat reference pages

JoNova – A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic’s Handbook

Eric Worrall – a prolific writer on the topic of climate

Willis Eschenbach – another prolific writer on the topic of climate

SPPI (Science and Public Policy Institute)

CO2 Science

NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change)

Geo-Engineering Watch – The leading resource on geo-engineering [Geoengineering is the artificial modification of Earth’s climate systems through two primary ideologies, Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)] – also refered to as ‘chem-trailing’ and ‘carbon sequestration.’ (N.b. – their view on climate is alarmist, nevertheless, they are the go-to site for eveything chemtrail.)

Partial Glossary

“CO₂ – Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, [and harmless] gas vital to life on Earth… Carbon dioxide exists in the Earth’s atmosphere as a trace gas at a concentration of about 0.04 % (400 ppm) by volume… Plants require carbon dioxide to conduct photosynthesis. The atmospheres of greenhouses may (if of large size, must) be enriched with additional CO₂ to sustain and increase the rate of plant growth.”

“Globalization is derived from the word globalize, which refers to the emergence of an international network of economic systems.”

“Environmental governance is a concept in political ecology and environmental policy that advocates sustainability (sustainable development) as the supreme consideration for managing all human activities—political, social and economic. Governance includes government, business, and civil society, and emphasizes whole system management.

It views natural resources and the environment as global public goods, belonging to the category of goods that are not diminished when they are shared. This means that everyone benefits from for example, a breathable atmosphere, stable climate and stable biodiversity.

Public goods are non-rivalrous—a natural resource enjoyed by one person can still be enjoyed by others—and non-excludable—it is impossible to prevent someone consuming the good (breathing). Nevertheless, public goods are recognized as beneficial and therefore have value. The notion of a global public good thus emerges, with a slight distinction: it covers necessities that must not be destroyed by one person or state.”

“The United Nations (UN) has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) (for promoting international economic and social co-operation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (inactive since 1994). UN System agencies include the World Bank Group, the World Health Organization (WHO,) the World Food Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO,) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF.) Non-governmental organizations may be granted consultative status with ECOSOC and other agencies to participate in the UN’s work.” (Ed- The World Trade Organization (WTO,) despite being closely linked to the UN, is not an official body of the UN System.)

“The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is an agency that coordinates its environmental activities, assisting developing countries in implementing environmentally sound policies and practices. It was founded by Maurice Strong, its first director, as a result of the United Nations Conference on the Human

[calfoxwc]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/24/global-warming-is-not-about-the-science-un-admits-climate-change-policy-is-about-how-we-redistribute-the-worlds-wealth/

 

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

 

A whistleblower who formerly directed NOAA’s climate data section has recently charged that the agency hurriedly prepared and released unverified and flawed global temperature information in order to push policy agendas favored by the U.N. and Obama administration at the U.N.’s 2015 Paris climate conference. The goal was to influence advanced nations to commit to sweeping reductions in their uses of fossil fuel and huge expenditures for climate-related aid projects.

[calfoxwc]

mmgw is a farce -

 

http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate

 

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

[calfoxwc]

you betcha

 

http://billmoyers.com/story/stop-climate-change-dont-just-cut-carbon-redistribute-wealth/

[calfoxwc]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/27/how-a-green-climate-change-fund-would-transfer-the-wealth-of-nations/

[MLD Woody]

Haha. Wow. That's a lot of posts to unhide.

 

Throw shit at the wall technique?

 

I'll have to remember to look after work

[Westside Steve]

Haha. Wow. That's a lot of posts to unhide.

 

Throw shit at the wall technique?

 

I'll have to remember to look after work

Better do it now we might all be dead by that time.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

My guess is, that every honest poster on here that reads what I posted, will at least

understand that I have rock solid reasons to refuse to climb on board the runaway liberal UN redistribution/gov

control of every damn thing/get high taxes for more benefits to the masses that don't need it....

 

emotional knee jerkie mmgw train.

 

"choo" on that, woodley.

[MLD Woody]

You can't separate the science from the politics. That's your first problem. You'd respond to the question "Why is man made climate change fake?" with "The dirty liberal UN scientists!!! Redistribution of wealth!!!!!"

[StinkHole]

You can't separate the science from the politics. That's your first problem. You'd respond to the question "Why is man made climate change fake?" with "The dirty liberal UN scientists!!! Redistribution of wealth!!!!!"

Stuart

 

Gee, all this time I was thinking this was a politics forum, not a science one.

 

The only one with a problem is you Woodley. Evidence that behind this whole idea of man made global warming is hidden a scheme by which progressives push their global redistribution of wealth agenda is glaring. The redistribution of wealth is an admission made by the NATO IPCC powers that be yet you still choose to keep your head in the sand.

 

Every country on earth except for North Korea and Syria I believe signed on to this stop global warming scheme.

Why is that Woodley? It's because the poorer countries contribute nothing.... but rather are the beneficiaries of that 3 Trillion of US taxpayer dollars the US planned to turn over to NATO for redistribution.

Thanks President Trump for putting a stop to that shit.

[calfoxwc]

You can't separate the science from the politics. That's your first problem. You'd respond to the question "Why is man made climate change fake?" with "The dirty liberal UN scientists!!! Redistribution of wealth!!!!!"

again, woodypeckerhead. the first thing you knee jerk with, is an antagonistic false narrative about ME. It isn't about me.

It's about what I posted. Did you ever get off work and read the links?

 

look at the first sentence of your birdbrain reply: "You can't...." yes I can. I chose links that show very solid reason for seriously

doubting your precious mmgw crock of crap. Look at the second sentence: "That's your first problem".... see the "your" ?

Look at the third sentence - "You'd ..."

Yet you have not referred to any actual content of the links I posted.

 

I tell you again, asswhole birdbrain, the feeble woodpecker responses are usually/very, very often/most of the time... attacks

on the person who posted, and not the post.

 

Try reading the links, then explaining why a rejection, or acceptance. Until then, STFU with the infantile

interpersonal attack stuff - it makes for a bad image.

 

Okay, let me be more succinct: Stop your woodpecker bitching at me, all the false narratives you lay on posters

you don't agree with.

 

I didn't write any of those link sources. Stop....being.....a....sissy.... emotional......kneejerkie....woodypeckerhead.

[MLD Woody]

Stuart

 

Gee, all this time I was thinking this was a politics forum, not a science one.

 

The only one with a problem is you Woodley. Evidence that behind this whole idea of man made global warming is hidden a scheme by which progressives push their global redistribution of wealth agenda is glaring. The redistribution of wealth is an admission made by the NATO IPCC powers that be yet you still choose to keep your head in the sand.

 

Every country on earth except for North Korea and Syria I believe signed on to this stop global warming scheme.

Why is that Woodley? It's because the poorer countries contribute nothing.... but rather are the beneficiaries of that 3 Trillion of US taxpayer dollars the US planned to turn over to NATO for redistribution.

Thanks President Trump for putting a stop to that shit.

Yes, a virtual consensus of climate science experts across the globe are all part of this massive liberal conspiracy to redistribute wealth. Each one is trying to produce a certain conclusion on their studies just so that a 3rd world country can receive money from a wealthy one.

 

 

You're more or less proving my point

[MLD Woody]

Yes, i can't wait to tell you why your 57 links are false, for the millionth time, only for you to ignore it, call me an asshole, and then post 50 more links...

 

 

This is a scientific issue. Companies that stand to loose from it have influenced politicians, which I'm turn have controlled you as needed. You're first thought on this issue is "what should i think as a conservative?" not "what does the science say."

 

We first need deniers to actually admit what the consensus of experts are saying. Then we can work towards solutions. But as long as one side has their head in the sand, nothing will happen

[calfoxwc]

a birdbrain woodypeckerhead does a mexican hat dance around the links.

 

who knew they could dance mexican?

 

not me.... learn something every day.

[MLD Woody]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/2/#7624835d08e7

 

"Kerry has gone so far as to say that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible. This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position."

 

"The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false."

 

The variety of opinion can be illustrated by one graph from the 2013 repeat of the Bray and von Storch survey showing the degree of belief that recent or future climate change is due to or will be caused by human activity. A value of 1 indicates not convinced and a value of 7 is very much convinced. The top three values add to 81%, roughly in the range of several other surveys.

There isn't a 97% agreement among the blanket group of "scientists". Just 80-90%. While among climate experts, it's close to 97%.

 

 

Is that the argument you're making with this one?

[calfoxwc]

yes, if it is actually 80%, why ignore 20% of all scientists?

 

Note- if you READ the article, it explains the 80% isn't all on board with CO2 being the cause of immediate destruction

of our earth.

 

Several groups of scientists vary on their beliefs. But, the UN official admits that redistribution of wealth is the goal.