Tag Archives: Global Warming

Chemtrails: Widespread Conspiracy Theory DEBUNKED

Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose.

By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB), January 30, 2014

weasel word 02_flat

Let’s start this article by examining the deceptive use of words and phrases and later i will explain how i believe such deceptions are used in the global warming debate.

A few examples of what i mean.

save02_200pxWhat exactly is being promised by a sign in a store window that says, “Save up to 50% on everything in the store?”

Does it mean:

  1. The discount is 50%
  2. The discount is somewhere between 0% and 50%
  3. The discount applies to everything in the store
  4. The discount only applies to some things in the store
  5. Nothing in the store is discounted
  6. All of the above.

Of course the correct answer is “F” – all of the above.

This is a classic case of advertisers intentionaly using deceptive wording to create a false impression. In this case, the meaning of the words “… up to . . .” can mean anything from 0% to 50%, which renders the rest of the statement meaningless. So even if NOTHING in the store is discounted, this sign is technically true.

Though this kind of deceptive wording might be obvious to some, you might be surprised to learn how many people reading such a sign will interpret it to mean everything in the store is heavily discounted. Deception sells.

Another example . . .


nutriSystem_cropped_250px
Look at the NutriSystem ad to the right. NutriSystem ran print ads like this along with TV commercials and the promise-sounding sales pitch, “… lose all the weight you can at Nutri/System for only $199. Don’t wait, call now.”

Wait a second, back up the truck. Did you catch the deception in this pitch?

For only $199 you will lose all the weight you can? I’m sure you see the problem with this wording. So did the Federal Trade Commission (PDF).

If you don’t lose any weight, then this would be all the weight you can lose. See? NutriSystem didn’t lie – you DID lose all the weight you can – now pay $199!!

One more quick example and i’ll move on to global warming . . .


loan_250pxThis used car salesman on the right. Is he guaranteeing you a loan or is he promising to accept your loan application (so he can toss it into the round file)? There’s a big difference.

How about car dealerships that promise “guaranteed credit” or “cash for all trade-ins!”

Do these sales pitches sound like you will get all the credit you need to buy your dream car and maximum dollars for your used car trade-in? Or do they really mean you’ll get $5 of credit at 25% interest and a whopping $10 for your used car trade-in?

Words mean things. How words are used, misused or not used at all (conspicuous by their absence), also has meaning and can give us a glimpse into the motives behind the words.


I was going through some global warming articles about a week ago and i found this statistic in an article from LiveScience.com:

63pct

My gut finds this statistic hard to believe. It just seems too high compared to other polls i’ve seen in the last few years on the same subject. Two years ago it was reported to be about 50%, now it’s reported at 63%? We haven’t seen any warming in over 15 years and the belief in global warming has climbed? Time to investigate.

So i found the survey upon which this statistic is based (Download the PDF) and i found something interesting on page 34 – the definition of global warming as it was defined for the respondents of this latest survey (November 2013):

GW definition

For the purpose of responding to this survey, there are 3 criteria to consider to determine if you are a global warming believer:

  1. If temperatures have increased over the last 150 years,
  2. future temperatures may increase, and
  3. the worlds climate may change as a result.

Recall the “50% off” sign, the NutriSystem ad and the used car salesman ad at the top of this article. Now look at the wording in the above three criteria. There is one word that renders two of the three criteria completely meaningless.

Do you see it?

The weasel word is “may” in the second and third criteria.

“May” is synonymous with “optional” – something may, OR may NOT, occur.

Thus the three criteria above and these three criteria below are exactly the same from a logic standpoint:

  1. If temperatures have increased over the last 150 years,
  2. future temperatures may OR may NOT increase, and
  3. the worlds climate may OR may NOT change.

With the second and third criterias rendered meaningless, the question of whether global warming is real comes down to one, single question:

  • Have temperatures increased over the last 150 years?

As reported in my last global warming article, this is the temperature record for the last 150 years:

The Record_600px

Like asking if the earth is round, answering the question “Have temperatures increased in the last 150 years?” comes down to a simple, objective, recitation of fact:

  • Yes, the squiggly line is higher on the right side of the graph than it is on the left side of the graph.

Because neither the definition used to assess the answer to the question nor the question itself asks the respondent to consider anything beyond the vertical movement of the squiggly line, the answer to the question cannot be construed as agreeing with the more expansive definition of global warming and the theoretical causes:

GlobalWarmingDefinition

KEEP READING – – –

Scientists Just Say No to ‘Chemtrails’ Conspiracy Theory

via The New York Times

 Contrails, or condensation trails, left by jet aircraft streak across the sky over Santa Fe, N.M. Credit Robert Alexander/Archive Photos, via Getty Images

Contrails, or condensation trails, left by jet aircraft streak across the sky over Santa Fe, N.M.
Credit Robert Alexander/Archive Photos, via Getty Images

Conspiracy theories can be stubborn, particularly in the echo chamber of the internet.

One persistent belief in some quarters is that the government — or business, perhaps — is deploying a fleet of jet aircraft to spray chemicals into the sky to control the population, food supply or other things.

As evidence, they point to what they call “chemtrails,” which are more commonly known as contrails, or condensation trails, produced at high altitudes as water vapor in jet engine exhaust condenses and freezes.

Adding fuel to the chemtrails theory is the fact that there are a few legitimate reasons for atmospheric spraying — “seeding” clouds to make rain, for example — and in recent years there has been some research on the idea of spraying chemicals as a potential way to fight global warming.

But now, scientists have become more organized in their efforts to shoot down the idea, conducting a peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters that debunks chemtrails supporters’ claims.

contrails-2_0350pxThe goal, the researchers say, is not so much to change the minds of hard-core believers, but to provide a rebuttal — the kind that would show up in a Google search — to persuade other people to steer clear of this idea.

Steven J. Davis, a climate scientist at the University of California, Irvine, said he had the idea for the study after a conversation with a salesman at a mattress store.

When the man found out what he did for a living, Dr. Davis said, “he had very serious questions about what we were going to do about the chemtrails problem.”

Dr. Davis said that when he got home, he searched the internet for peer-reviewed studies on the conspiracy theory, but found none.

The theory has been popularized on websites that display photographs of contrails but are described instead as chemtrails that persist in the atmosphere and contain harmful chemicals like strontium, barium and aluminum.

Continue Reading @ The New York Times . . .

chemtrail-pilot-cartoon-338_0450px

The Truth about CO2

State of the Climate: 10 years after Al Gore declared a ‘planetary emergency’

Top 10 reasons Gore was wrong

By via Watts Up With That?

global-warming-Gore_200pxAs I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, ten years ago today, Al Gore said we had only a decade left to save the planet from global warming. But Earth and humanity has been doing just fine since then.

People that know money over at Investor’s Business Daily, said that “We Know Al Gore’s Been Running A Global Warming Racket” and listed five ways they ascertain this, I’m going to list those, embellish them, and add a few of my own. IBD writes:


While preening at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2006 during the premiere of his “An Inconvenient Truth” fib-umentary, Gore made his grand declaration. The former vice president said, in the words of the AP reporter taking down his story, that

“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” In Gore’s own words, he claimed we were in “a true planetary emergency.”

Ten years later, he’s probably hoping that everyone has forgotten about his categorical statement…


Meanwhile he’s been busy turning his gloom and doom predictions into cash and assets. here is their list (first 5, with my embellishments), and 5 more items -Anthony

1 – Satellite data says that Earth hasn’t warmed in nearly 20 years. Yes, 2015 supposedly “smashed” the previous temperature record. But actually it was the third-warmest year on record according to satellites.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2015_v6-1

Claims of “hottest ever” in 2015 have been due in part to a strong El Niño in 2015 (which even climate scientist Dr. Richard Betts grudgingly admits to) and some statistical sleight of hand by NOAA to boost temperatures. They said in 1997, that the current absolute temperature of the Earth was warmer by several degrees that today, but they’ve since changed their methodology and say that’s no longer the case…however, their initial claim lines up with what we see in the satellite record above about 1997 and 1998 when the supersized El Niño happened.

Continue reading @ Watts Up With That?

global warming evidence 714_400px

Satellites show no ‘global warming’ for 18 1/2 years –

No North Pole warming for nearly 14 years! No South Pole warming for 37 years!

U.S. has had no warming for 18 years

South Pole sees no warming for 37 years. ‘For the whole of the satellite record, the South Polar region has had a negative trend.  So much for a fingerprint of warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect being greater warming at the Poles!’


Globe:

nov globe

There has been zero trend for exactly half the record, (and for an increase in CO2 concentration of 37 ppm).


Southern Hemisphere:

nov SH

The Pause has lengthened again.  For more than half the record the Southern Hemisphere has zero trend.


Tropical Oceans:

nov tropic oceans

Continue Reading – – –  Satellites show no ‘global warming’ for 18 1/2 years – No N. Pole warming for nearly 14 years – No S. Pole warming for 37 years! | Climate Depot

What I Learned about Climate Change:

The Science is not Settled

David SiegelBy David Siegel via www.ClimateCurious.com

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

global warming consensus_250pxMore than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1 • Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

2 • Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

3 • There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

4 • New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

5CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

6 • There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

7 • Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

8 • The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

9 • No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them.

10 • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey.

Continue Reading at ClimateCurious.com – – –

Also See: How a liberal vegan environmentalist made the switch from climate proponent to climate skeptic (wattsupwiththat)

no global warming 18 years

Climate Change & CO2: What They Haven’t Told You

What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change

By Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, via Prager University on Facebook

Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.


The Truth about CO2

By Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, via Prager University on Facebook

Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.

John Stossel – Global Warming Superstars

Via YouTube.

Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

Real Science

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

ScreenHunter_10009 Jul. 27 12.16

Measured : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Reported : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

ScreenHunter_10008 Jul. 27 12.08

The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

ScreenHunter_10010 Jul. 27 12.20

The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”

View original post

10 Ludicrous Conspiracy Theories On Depopulation

By Marc V. via Listverse

As we’ve mentioned before, conspiracy theories can be found anywhere on the planet and can encompass just about any subject matter under the Sun. They are used to explain any mysterious event, albeit with a reasoning that can only be described as certifiably insane. Of course, the conspirators are almost always identified as belonging to a cabal of rich and powerful individuals, which brings us to the topic of depopulation. Overpopulation, exhaustion of natural resources, or evil designs are but a few of the reasons why depopulation conspiracy theories still occupy a special place in the minds of the paranoid.

10 • Pacte De Famine

Pacte De Famine_300pxContrary to the popular notion that they are products of the American mind, depopulation conspiracy theories and their beginnings should actually be credited to the French, with their infamous Pacte de Famine (Famine Pact) in the late 18th century. During that period, a combination of unfavorable weather and relatively poor farming methods produced a severe food shortage across many regions of France, resulting in the raising of the prices of food and other basic commodities.

Due to this unfortunate event, many of the middle and lower classes—especially the peasants—believed that the aristocracy or some other shadowy group was secretly controlling the price of grains to control their burgeoning population. The paranoia led to the Flour War, a collective term for the series of riots and revolts that broke out in the affected areas. Incidentally, this atmosphere of fear and distrust helped to kick-start the French Revolution.

9 • The Human Genome Project Is A Eugenics Program

James Dewey Watson, American molecular biologist, geneticist and zoologist, best known as one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA in 1953. Shared the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. (Wikipedia)

We’ve previously discussed the Human Genome Project and the innumerable benefits it has brought to the human race. However, such a massive, well-funded program is not without its controversies. For one, there is a conspiracy theory which says that the project is actually nothing more than a cover for eugenicists to develop better methods of exterminating those people whom they have deemed inferior and unfit for this planet.

According to this conspiracy, the end goal of the project is the identification and elimination of “bad genes” across the world. Mapping out the human genome would allow the supposed conspirators to build better diseases and other biological weapons to subtly sterilize and wipe out inferior races. Even drugs would be customized to eliminate the targeted groups around the globe. As to the identity of the conspirators, it’s anyone’s guess. Of course, the usual suspects would include the CIA, the military, the Illuminati, or any other “evil” group.

8 • Global Warming Is An Excuse To Depopulate The World

global warming earth 1046_300pxBy itself, global warming is already a very controversial topic. Its very existence is a constant subject of heated debate between affirmers and deniers. As if that isn’t enough, a few crazies in the deniers’ camp have stated that the campaign to stop global warming is really just a ruse to implement a depopulation program.

According to them, the crusade to cut back on fossil fuels and substances harmful to the environment would actually mean decreasing large-scale food and energy production throughout the world. This man-made famine and poverty would then result in a worldwide genocide and the destruction of the global economy, making it easier for whoever is behind the scheme to implement a New World Order. They claim that the ban on DDTs has already resulted in the deaths of more than 100 million people, while the ban on CFCs is killing 40 million people annually.

MORE – – –

PageBreak

Note: Mason I. Bilderberg’s personal views on global warming: global warming button

Damn The Atomic Weight Deniers!!

settled science elements_400px
quick note_150pxBefore i forget . . .

Because i’m a Mann-Made global warming skeptic and i hear the very anti-scientific phrase “settled science” ad nauseum, i see a lot of humor and irony in the following story regarding settled science suddenly being unsettled:

Atomic Weight Changed for 19 Elements (PDF Here)

From the article:

Nineteen elements on the periodic table — including gold, cadmium, arsenic and aluminum — are getting their atomic weights adjusted.

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) announced that they’ve approved new weights for the elements thanks to more precise measurements and better calculations of the abundance of certain isotopes (atoms of an element with different numbers of neutrons).

Just when you thought all the science in the periodic chart was settled! Damn you atomic weight deniers!! Damn you!

🙂

MIB

Climate science in ‘Jeopardy’

Jeopardy Logo 03
Board 05_flat_180pxBy Anthony J. Sadar and JoAnn Truchan via Washington Times

Scientific practice is a bit off these days. It seems as if the promoters of man-made climate change only want one answer for the cause of every climate phenomenon. Among them:

The reason why thermometers are rising so quickly worldwide. The reason worldwide temperatures have leveled off in the past 17 years. The cause of the higher-than-average hurricane season in 2005. The cause of the lower-than-average hurricane season in 2013. The reason there has been so little snowfall in the U.S. and Europe. The reason there has been so much snowfall in the U.S. and Europe.

If climate science were a category on the popular game show “Jeopardy,” where the answer must be in the form of a question, there would be but one response allowed for the cause of all these contradictory events: “What is man-made climate change?”

Not every “unusual” atmospheric condition or event evokes the humans-are-responsible answer, however. Oftentimes, to attract unwary audiences, not-so-unusual but still unfamiliar events are exaggerated by purveyors of pernicious prognostications.

Take the “polar vortex” scare. This natural phenomenon was proffered as something new, something frightening, something produced by people living comfortably as a result of the use of carbon-based fossil fuels. Of course, it is none of that. This is verified by the Glossary of Meteorology, published by the American Meteorological Society in 1959, in which this well-known phenomenon was clearly defined, not hyped.

Celebrity Jeopardy Comes To Radio City Music HallAs the ancient Ecclesiastes writer observed, there really is “nothing new under the sun.”

Certainly, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) practices the sort of science that gives the desired response first, then seeks the appropriate corresponding questions.

The IPCC defines its role as “to assess … the risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” In other words, the IPCC assumes from the get-go the desired answer that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It is then the game of researchers, enticed with prized government grants, to find the evidence that always lead to that conclusion.

MORE – – –

The Cooling World (April 28, 1975 – Newsweek Magazine)

By Mason I. Bilderberg – August 22, 2014

Forty years ago global cooling was the alarmist du jour for scaring the hell out of everybody. “Science” was predicting drought, extended dry spells, floods, desolation, food shortages, devastating tornadoes, catastrophic famine, long freezes, temperature increases and even a reversion to the “little ice age” when the Thames was frozen so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. (source: the article featured below)

Science Says Board Game_400px“Scientists” were wringing their hands, worried sick, because they saw “few signs that government leaders anywhere [that] are … prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food.”

The article ends with the same old tired refrain that is repeated ad nauseam by every alarmist everywhere every time the world is about to end (again): “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”

Yes. “Science says”, we must ACT NOW! It is imperative to do something immediately – if not sooner – to prevent planetary destruction.

So, from my personal magazine collection i present to you these snippets from a climate-related article published in Newsweek magazine on April 28, 1975. Click the image to download a PDF copy of the entire article in all its alarmist glory.

caption

Click above for a HQ PDF version of the full article

Enjoy 🙂

MIB

Global Warming: Why The IPCC sees exactly what it’s looking for

IPCC headline

By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)
8/21/2014

IPCC Muffler Repair_300pxImagine you’ve owned the same car since 1988 and for all these years you’ve always brought your car to the same mechanic. Now imagine the street sign to the right belongs to the mechanic you’ve been using all these years. Read the sign carefully.

Would you be at all surprised if this mechanic was only focused on muffler and exhaust related issues? So much so that maybe you too became overly focused on your muffler and exhaust?

Given your choice of shops is strictly limited to muffler and exhaust repairs, how can you ever expect to accurately diagnose problems NOT muffler or exhaust related?

The answer is, you can’t.

So what does a fictional muffler shop have to do with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? Take a look at the IPCC  street sign:

IPCC Role_600

Above is the IPCC mandate as defined by the U.N.[1] [2]

That’s right. Underneath all their papers, studies, rhetoric and obfuscation, lies the IPCC’s “muffler and exhaust” mandate as defined by the IPCC’s creator – the United Nations. Now you know why every one of their “findings” is “human-caused.”

“The IPCC does not have a mandate to consider any other causations for alleged climate change, such as natural ones related to solar change and ocean circulation cycles — just presumptive human causes, such as fossil fuels.

“The IPCC sees a human climate-fingerprint everywhere because that is what they are looking for.” – S. Fred Singer[3]

My muffler analogy may not be the best example, but i think you get the idea: The next time you see a headline or hear a person touting another monumental, human-caused climate finding by the IPCC, remind them how the IPCC is finding what they’re looking for in the only place they’re looking.

Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)

IPCC Finding GW_500px

Sources:

[1] – Download the mandate by following this chain of links: IPCC > Procedures > Click “Principles Governing IPCC Work” and choose your language to download the PDF – OR – you can download a copy here (PDF)
[2] – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by, and operates under the control and monitoring of, the United Nations(source).
[3] – Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. (Source: Wikipedia)

Plastic from the Air, Global Warming Solution or SCAM?

By Thunderf00t via YouTube

Always depressing to see the level of scientific illiteracy in the mainstream media and in many cooperation.

So Fox News, CBS, The Weather Channel and USA today all had articles on ‘aircarbon’ which purports to pull carbon out of the air through a hose.

They generally try to be as vague as possible, but claim they are making carbon out of the air, and that this will be cheaper than regular plastic.

Thats Bullshit on every level:

Firstly if they are making a polymer out of carbon dioxide, you need to put a load of energy into it. More than you would have gotten from burning the oil and creating that carbon dioxide in the first place.

If they are talking about pulling methane out of the air, they are so full of bull it beggars belief. Methane in the air runs at about one part per million. Just pumping enough air to do this would cost more energy than just making a polymer out of oil.

Thirdly, if they are talking about making this polymer from biogas/ biomethane.. then all their claims about making it out of the air are outrageously misleading!

Some ball park figures:
1kg of oil makes ~ 1kg of plastic.
Methane is about 1 part in a million in air. So to make 1kg of plastic requires 1 million kg of air (1000 tons). Air is about 1kg per cubic meter so to extract 1kg of ‘air plastic’ from the air would take about 1million cubic meters of air. About the volume of the empire state building!!

Another Ice Age?

By Mason I. Bilderberg – August 12, 2014

From my personal magazine collection is this climate-related article published in Time magazine on June 24, 1974:

Click the image to view an image of the full article.
Click here for a PDF version of the full article.

Follow the links below the image to view the entire article, it makes for great reading. If you replace the word “cooling” with the word “warming” and replace the phrase “ice age” with the phrase “scalding cauldron of death and destruction” it’s just like an Al Gore speech but without the monotonous, lack-of-inflection robot voice.

Enjoy 🙂

MIB

In Search of … The Coming Ice Age

Intro by Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)

In this day and age of global warming alarmism people either forgot or don’t know that there was a time only 35 years ago when “scientists” were screaming and warning us of the coming ice age.

From 1938 to 1978 CO2 concentration were rising temperatures were declining.

From 1938 to 1978 CO2 concentration were rising while temperatures were declining.

Below is an episode of “in Search of …”, a 1970s show hosted by Leonard ‘Mr. Spock’ Nimoy that explored mysteries of the day. This particular episode first aired in May, 1978 and explores “The Coming Ice Age.”

I find this episode interesting because they present the same historical data and trends we’re familiar with today – including the 40 year temperature decline that had begun 40 years earlier. But in the late 70s alarmists interpreted this data to mean an ice age was imminent.

Then in the early to mid 80s temperatures showed some warming and some of these same scientists spun around 180 degrees and declared the globe was now warming instead. A great example of this flip-flop is “Stanford University’s noted global warming alarmist and Al Gore advisor Stephen Schneider”(source) who appears in this 1978 episode endorsing and discussing the coming ice age – only to flip to a global WARMING alarmist position when it was convenient.

With the lack of warming over the last 17 years, i wonder how long before “science” decides we’re not headed for a scalding cauldron of death and destruction. Let me guess: as soon as somebody figures out how to create a multi-billion dollar industry to support and tax the new alarmist position.

Enjoy the “science” from 1978 🙂

MIB


Global Warming: What Correlation?

No_Correlation

Click image for larger view.

Al Gore’s Global Warming and Climate Change Game!

Click for larger view.

Click for larger view.

About those 97% of climate scientists . . .

menu choice 04By Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB) – June 23, 2014

As you know, i am a global warming skeptic. If you wish to catch up on what i believe and why, i recommend looking to the menu at the top of each page where it says “Global Warming.”

Very briefly, this how i split the issue:

I have always had issues with the question, “Do you believe in global warming?”, because it’s really two questions:

  1. Has the earth warmed (over some time frame)?
  2. Are humans responsible?

Because simply answering “yes” to the above question can be misunderstood to mean you agree warming has occurred AND that humans are primarily responsible, i always split the issue:

  1. I do agree there has been some warming over the last 100 years, BUT
  2. I’m not convinced humans are the main cause. I’m inclined to think our climate is primarily driven by the same natural forces that have driven our climate since the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago – and humans are a small part of that natural cycle.

Today i want to revisit an aspect of the global warming theory that i covered in my article “Global Warming: I Have Questions.”

Specifically, i want to add an addendum to my previous challenges of the much touted “97% of scientists agree global warming is real” meme.

For some background, this 97% figure comes from a study conducted by climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and it is quoted ad nauseam by global warming reality deniers as proof that “97% of climate scientists agree global warming is real and humans are the cause.”

global warming weather_500px
To date, i had been unable to track down a copy of this 2013 study. I thought maybe i had just been looking in all the wrong places, then i come to find out “the University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists (John Cook) to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.[1]

More on the University of Queensland threatening lawsuits over the use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal can be found here, here and here.

global-warming-Gore 02_225pxInteresting, eh? 97% of scientists agree but nobody can use the data in a rebuttal. Gotta love it.

But alas, i finally found a PDF copy of this elusive study and i’ve had a chance to read through it for myself (PDF copy here) and below is my rebuttal.

This rebuttal of the study doesn’t get into the questionable methodology used by John Cook and his fellow authors. I’ll leave that for another day and another time. Why? Because i don’t want to muddy the waters. I don’t need to. Taken at face value, the study does NOT say “97% of scientists agree global warming is real.”

Let’s start on page 3 of the study where they explain how the total number of papers examined was determined:

method

The results and their findings are then depicted on page 4 of the study, in this table. The colors are not in the original table; I added these colors to make it easier to follow along with my breakdown that follows.

table 3 02

These colors will help you follow along with my breakdown, below.

Interpretation of this data is as easy as 1, 2, 3 …

  1. 11,944 papers were analyzed.
  2. 3,896 of these papers expressed a position endorsing anthropogenic global warming (agw).
  3. 3,896 is 32.6% of the 11,944 papers.

CONCLUSION: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.

That’s it. I’ve done nothing to adjust or interpret these numbers. What you see is what you get: 32.6% of the papers agree global warming is real.

The 97% figure could only be obtained by completely ignoring 7,930 out of 11,944 papers.

The 97% figure could only be obtained by completely ignoring 7,930 out of 11,944 papers.

What? What am i missing here? How does Cook et al twist 32.6% into the oft-quoted 97%?

I’ll tell you what’s missing – and it explains why the University of Queensland is threatening lawsuits over the use of this data for any scientific rebuttals:

They simply ignore the 7,930 papers not expressing a position.

That’s right, they simply ignored the 7,930 papers  not expressing a position and qualified their 97% findings by saying the “percent of papers with a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)“.

The bottom line is, without any interpretation, taken at face value, without any qualifying language, this study says:

32.6% of scientists agree global warming is real!

That is the plain language of this study. Period.

Now remember i said i wasn’t going to get into the methodology of this study? Well, i’m not. But somebody far more qualified than myself has, and this 32.6% gets horribly worse for the authors of this study.

Find out why there is only a 0.3% climate consensus!

🙂

Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)


Also See:

John Kerry reaches new highs of beclowning himself with temperature

global warming weather

Watts Up With That?

I’m pretty sure he’ll blame his blathering on the heat. You have to wonder if privately, many leading climate alarmists are saying quietly “shut up John you are blowing our argument“.

(CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience in Mexico on Wednesday that temperatures in Europe and in Vietnam were “unprecedented” and broke “every record that’s ever been seen.” However, although it was hot that day, he was off the mark. 

View original post 281 more words

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case

I am a global warming climate change climate disruption skeptic. I catch a lot of heat (pun intended) for my skepticism.

global-warming-Gore 02_225pxBut i have my reasons and this video does a very level-headed job of explaining where skeptics are coming from in the global warming climate change climate disruption debate.

If you’re a global warming climate change climate disruption believer and you wish to understand the skeptic’s perspective, i ask you to watch just the first 2 minutes.

The first 2 minutes of this video does an excellent job of spelling out the very thin line between believers and skeptics. So close, yet so far.

This video appears to be based on an article written by Dr. David M.W. Evans called The Skeptic’s Case. As such, you might find the video easier to understand if you read along with the original text (The Skeptic’s Case) or download the PDF here.

Actually, the PDF text version is worth downloading as a standalone resource for those times when people ask why you’re a global warming climate change climate disruption skeptic.

Enjoy 🙂

Mason I. Bilderberg


By Dr. David M.W. Evans via YouTube

Global Warming: Pop! Goes the Weasels!

By Mason I. Bilderberg – 5/8/2014

global-warming-Gore 02_225pxAs you might know by now, i have serious doubts about the global warming climate change climate disruption theory. Quite frankly, i’m not convinced. At all.

There’s just too much funny business going on with the language and the alleged “science.”

If you want a more comprehensive insight into the reasons for my doubts, i suggest reading two articles i recently wrote: Global Warming: I Have Questions and Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose.

weasel word 02_flat_400pxOne of the topics i hit upon in my second article (Global Warming: Heads they win, tails you lose) is the use of weasel words in the global warming debate.

This is a real hot point with me – the use of misleading language to distort the global warming climate change climate disruption argument. If you have to lie, distort and otherwise mislead people to sell your wares, there’s a problem.

As a recent example, over at techtimes.com is this ominous sounding headline:

Carbon dioxide, cause of global warming, hits record high level in atmosphere since existence of mankind

Scary, eh?

The first two paragraphs read:

Carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have been in the history of mankind, according to a new study.

Researchers from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in San Diego, California made an analysis of carbon dioxide levels, finding concentrations at their highest level in 800,000 years. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Investigators found 401.33 parts per million of the greenhouse gas in the air.

To spot weasel wording you normally would look for some kind of qualifier language within the claim. In this instance, the phrase “800,000 years” jumped off the page at me.

So i naturally asked myself, “Self, why . . . why would they limit this claim to a time frame of 800,000 years when we know the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old and we know scientists have calculated carbon dioxide levels going back AT LEAST 500 million years?”

Here is why: to distort the truth.

Look at the graphs below. First thing to note is the Y axis on both graphs represents the level of CO2 concentration in parts per million (ppm). The Y axis on both graphs are of equal size, this allows you to have an accurate perspective when comparing the CO2 levels between the two graphs.

The top graph represents the last 1 million years. The blue squiggly line represents the CO2 levels for the last 800,000 years that are referenced in the techtimes.com article.

The bottom graph represents the last 600 million years. The blue line represents the CO2 levels for the last 600 million years.

Take a look:

800K_610px

Now do you see why the techtimes.com article couched their scary headline within the 800,000 year time frame? Had they gone back any further they wouldn’t be able to write their tabloid headline! (Added bonus: 800,000 years allows them to use the catchy phrase “since the existence of mankind” which helps advance the “blame mankind” narrative.)

Mason I. Bilderberg (MIB)

More on my global warming climate change climate disruption perspective:

Top Ten Good Skeptical Arguments (Global Warming)

Roy W SpencerBy Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

As suggested by a friend, I’m following up my Top Ten bad global warming arguments list with a Top Ten good arguments list. These are in no particular order, and I might have missed something important.

These ten were just off the top of my head….there’s no telling what might be lingering deeper in my brain.

I have avoided specific alternative causal mechanisms of natural climate change, because I view them individually as speculative. But taken as a whole, they represent a class of unknowns that can’t be just swept under the rug just because we don’t understand them.

For some reason, all of these ended up being phrased as questions, rather than statements.

Per NOAA, Current Global Warming 'Pause' Unprecedented In Modern Era - 190 Months Long

Per NOAA, Current Global Warming ‘Pause’ Unprecedented In Modern Era – 190 Months Long (source)

1 • No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so “settled”, why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature datasets), contrary to all “consensus” predictions?

2 • Natural or Manmade? If we don’t know how much of the warming in the longer term (say last 50 years) is natural, then how can we know how much is manmade?

3 • IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists “believe”? And when did scientists’ “beliefs” translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming Believers Party?

4 • Climate Models Can’t Even Hindcast How did climate modelers, who already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how do you botch a hindcast?

5 • …But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can’t even explain the past?

6 • Modelers Lie About Their “Physics”. Why do modelers insist their models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very uncertain “fudge factor” tuning?

MORE – – –

Also See:

How did the IPCC’s alarmism take everyone in for so long?

Christopher BookerBy via Telegraph

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. global-warming-Gore 02_225pxThey will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt.

Scores of models, millions of data-points, more CO2
emitted than ever before, and the models crash and burn.

Graph: John Christy. Data: KMNI.
Click image for larger view.
More | More | More

But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.

Cover PagesFive times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.

Each time it would emerge just how shamelessly these Summaries had distorted the actual evidence, picking out the scary bits, which themselves often turned out not to have been based on proper science at all. The most glaring example was the  .  .  .

MORE – – –

Debunking every IPCC climate prophesy of war, pestilence, famine, drought, impacts in one line

By Joanne Nova via JoNova

We could spend hours analyzing the new IPCC report about the impacts of climate change. Or we could just point out:

  1. Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I. (see footnote 1 SPM, page 3)
  2. Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.

The models are broken. They are based on flawed assumptions about water vapor.

Working Group I, remember, was supposed to tell us the scientific case for man-made global warming. If our emissions aren’t driving the climate towards a catastrophe, then we don’t need to analyze what happens during the catastrophe we probably won’t get. This applies equally to War, Pestilence, Famine, Drought, Floods, Storms, and Shrinking Fish (which, keep in mind, could have led to the ultimate disaster: shrinking fish and chips).

To cut a long story short, the 95% certainty of Working Group I boils down to climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause in surface temperature trends (von Storch 2013) . Even under the most generous interpretation, models are proven failures,  100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else (Taylor 2012). They get cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012). They don’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008). They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010,  Po-Chedley 2012, Fu 2011, Paltridge 2009). The fingerprints they predicted are 100% missing.

Scores of models, millions of data-points, more CO2 emitted than ever before,
and the models crash and burn. | Graph: John Christy. Data: KMNI.
(click image for larger view)
Also see: Even with the best models, warmest decades, most CO2: Models are proven failures

Even the IPCC admits in the fine print that the models don’t work.

MORE – – –

%d bloggers like this: