Man-Made Global Warming is a Hoax!
There is no such thing as man-made global warming, err, climate-change. I mean, whatever it’s called today, it doesn’t exist. It just doesn’t, at least not in the way that climate-change alarmists would like you to believe.
I don’t deny that global warming is real. The earth’s climate has been changing for billions of years. Around 250–65 million years ago, dinosaurs roamed the planet. This meant the concentration of CO2 increased and global temperatures increased again.
Then there was a sudden decrease in temperatures around 65 million years ago which resulted in the extinction of the dinosaurs. Next on the timeline, 55 million years ago, records show a massive warming of between 5–8 ⁰C in just 20,000 years. Around 35 million years ago was the arrival of the Ice Age.
And guess what? There were no humans!
The earth has been bombarded with asteroids and comets, the magnetic fields are slowly drifting, there has been solar flares effecting the earth, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions amongst others which has affected the climate of earth and the earth is still okay.
Call me a climate-change denier, a contrarian if it pleases you. But the only thing I disagree on is the man-made part of the problem.
Man is arrogant to think a rogue, war-mongering species roaming the earth and destroying everything in its path can destroy the planet. What is not helping the situation is the one-sided arguments, or the alarmists.
Alarmists argue that Artic sea ice is melting faster than predicted and Antarctic ice is decreasing but what alarmists fail to mention is that Antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing. They also fail to admit that sea levels are rising but not at the accelerated pace as predicted.
Alarmists like to point their fingers at the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and talk about how aggressive these storms have become.
According to meteorologist Dennis Feltgen, spokesman for NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC), “as of October 24, 2016, it will be a complete 11 years since a major hurricane (category 3) has struck the United States . . . the last one to do so was Hurricane Wilma on October 24, 2005,” Feltgen said.
Facts don’t stop the alarmists though. I found an article on skeptic.com which shows beautifully how they operate.
“The core of the consensus view of the scientific community has been stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its ‘Climate Change 2007’ report. The core of the consensus view is, among other things, that global warming is happening and that human activities are contributing significantly to the climate change, which is affecting such things as the intensity of hurricanes and rising sea levels.”
Two things, they continue the use of “consensus” when talking about science and continue to deny the decreasing hurricane activity and exaggerate the rising sea level data.
Here are the alarmists talking point:
The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.
The talking point is derived from a paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature by John Cook et al. and is the subject of a talking point which is being hailed as gospel.
We’ve all heard the quote more times than we’d like: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous”
This false information is being used to guilt leaders of countries into signing treaties that use baseless science as fact. It is being used to shut down businesses and destroy communities. It is being used as an excuse to raise taxes in some instances.
A new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, reveals that Cook et al. had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be only 0.3%, not ninety-seven percent.
“If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” Michael Crichton.
John Cook’s paper is a textbook example of agnotology, the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Cook’s sleight of hand begins with the assertion that fossil-fuel interests, i.e. big oil had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. The post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus, or an agreement among experts, and that a near unanimous agreement exists. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook excluded about 8000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus He himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change,’ by David R. Legates et al. decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.
David Legates believes that Cook couldn’t find the results he wanted, in fact Cook’s paper “provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus,” in other words, Cook proved himself wrong.