Good News Sucks for Climate Cultists
- Thread starter Libhater
- Start date
Funding AGW research today is identical to buying indulgences from the Catholic Church in the dark ages.
Everyone involved knows it's a fraud - but the pious still defend it to the bitter end. They are the biggest frauds of all.
When the Deniers have finished fencing with rolled-up data charts................the climate-change refugees are in deep shit;
Climate Change Refugees...
Oh the shit you cultists try and peddle...
moon
Satire for Sanity
There are millions today- millions more next week. Yours is a lost cause. The reality of global warming has excreted you.
Should have listened;
The United Nations estimates that 36 million people were displaced by natural disasters in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available. Scientists predict this number could rise to at least 200 million by 2050 — meaning that within 35 years, one in every 45 people in the world would have been displaced by climate change.
https://www.medaxs.com.au/2015/09/30/5-things-you-should-know-about-climate-refugees/
Sept. 2015
Last edited:
ROFL
Just when we think you morons can't get any stupider.
You know that almost no one believes in your foolish religion anymore.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...204/why-dont-people-believe-in-climate-change
moon
Satire for Sanity
The above statistic is from an insurance company, blind dumbass.
If it was a movie- you'd be Mayor of Shark City
Haw, haw.........................................haw.
The above statistic is from an insurance company, blind dumbass.
If it was a movie- you'd be Mayor of Shark City
Haw, haw.........................................haw.
I mean, the first tornado in human history was just a few months ago.
We have NEVER had a drought - that whole mediteranian drying up and North Africans walking across dry land to the middle east in the 3rd century AD is because the Romans drove big chariots and had indoor plumbing.
The world will end if poor people don't suffer sweltering heat and bitter cold. Gaia DEMANDS that the middle class be crushed and we return to the dark ages or the earth will be destroyed...
ROFL
You cultists are such fools.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Right,
Pure as the driven snow...
The AGW cult is 100% about chasing grant money. For large corporations, it's pretty much extortion. For government, it's a power grab. In both cases, the conclusion drives the research.
Every accusation is a confession.
Every accusation is a confession.
You're right.
I'm confessing that the AGW cult is just about money - about extorting corporations and empowering petty dictators...
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Reading not your forte?
Thinking not yours?
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Clearly more mine than yours if you didn't understand the post I made. LOL. Look, I don't have a lot patience today so I'm going to leave you be. You aren't worth the effort right now. Maybe later.
I thought I made it clear earlier?
I don't debate scripture with Jehovahs Witnesses, nor do I debate the religious texts of the Gaia cult with the morons who follow the AGW relgion.
I'm here to mock you, not debate you.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
No, you're here to hear yourself talk. You don't have any technical background and you don't display any technical knowledge of this topic so your points are exactly valueless.
Sorry if you were confused.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Son, have you any clue what the letters Sc.D. mean?
Of course you don't.
Last edited:
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Yes I do. It's the Euro equivalent to a PhD here in the States.
I didn't realize you could get one in janitorial studies.
serendipity
Verified User
Climate alarmists can't even prove that there is a positive feedback loop mechanism at work. Without it the warming is relatively mild for a doubling of CO2 concentration, and requires something else to scare the horses.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria/
Last edited:
serendipity
Verified User
Nic Lewis has done much work in this area and published many papers on the subject of climate sensitivity.
Important new paper challenges IPCC’s claims about climate sensitivity
Posted on September 20, 2022 by niclewis | 185 Comments
by Nic Lewis
Official estimates of future global warming may be overstated.
A brief summary in press release style of my new paper (written in the third person)
One of the most important conclusions of the recent 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6) was to reduce the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since 1979, the likely range (66% chance) of climate sensitivity has been between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. This range has remained stubbornly wide, until the IPCC AR6 narrowed the likely range to be between 2.5°C and 4.0°C.
A new paper by independent scientist Nic Lewis published in the journal Climate Dynamics challenges the conclusions of the IPCC AR6 about climate sensitivity. Lewis’ analysis reduces the magnitude of climate sensitivity by one third, relative to the range provided by the IPCC AR6. These results suggest that future global warming in response to fossil fuel emissions could be significantly less than has been assumed by policy makers.
In 2015, the World Climate Research Programme convened a Workshop aimed at reducing the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide. The Workshop ultimately resulted in publication of a report (a 92 page paper) by many of the participants that thoroughly assessed all lines of evidence (Sherwood et al, 2020). A key result of this paper was to reduce the likely range of climate sensitivity values to 2.6 oC to 3.9 oC. While Lewis was an invited participant to the 2015 Workshop, he was not a coauthor on this paper. The Sherwood et al. paper strongly influenced the IPCC AR6’s assessment of climate sensitivity.
Lewis’ paper critiqued the methods used in the Sherwood et al. paper, finding significant errors, inconsistencies and other shortcomings. Lewis remedied these shortcomings and also revised key input data, almost entirely to reflect more recent evidence. The results of Lewis’ analysis determined a likely range of 1.75 to 2.7oC for climate sensitivity. The central estimate from Lewis’ analysis is 2.16 oC, which is well below the IPCC AR6 likely range. This large reduction relative to Sherwood et al. shows how sensitive climate sensitivity estimates are to input assumptions. Lewis’ analysis implies that climate sensitivity is more likely to be below 2 oC than it is to be above 2.5 oC.
The lower estimates of climate sensitivity determined by Nic Lewis have profound implications for climate models and projections of warming for the 21st century. Climate models used in the IPCC AR6 had values of climate sensitivity ranging from 1.8oC to 5.6oC. The IPCC AR6 judged that some of the climate models had values of climate sensitivity that were too high. Hence the AR6 selected only the climate models with reasonable values of climate sensitivity to be used in projections of 21st century climate change. Lewis’ analysis indicates that a majority of climate models used in the IPCC AR6 have values higher than the likely range.
Nic Lewis has authored ten peer-reviewed papers on climate sensitivity. Lewis’ latest paper is entitled ‘Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence’. It can be freely downloaded here. A detailed explanatory article about the paper is available here.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/20/...enges-ipccs-claims-about-climate-sensitivity/
Important new paper challenges IPCC’s claims about climate sensitivity
Posted on September 20, 2022 by niclewis | 185 Comments
by Nic Lewis
Official estimates of future global warming may be overstated.
A brief summary in press release style of my new paper (written in the third person)
One of the most important conclusions of the recent 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6) was to reduce the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since 1979, the likely range (66% chance) of climate sensitivity has been between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. This range has remained stubbornly wide, until the IPCC AR6 narrowed the likely range to be between 2.5°C and 4.0°C.
A new paper by independent scientist Nic Lewis published in the journal Climate Dynamics challenges the conclusions of the IPCC AR6 about climate sensitivity. Lewis’ analysis reduces the magnitude of climate sensitivity by one third, relative to the range provided by the IPCC AR6. These results suggest that future global warming in response to fossil fuel emissions could be significantly less than has been assumed by policy makers.
In 2015, the World Climate Research Programme convened a Workshop aimed at reducing the uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide. The Workshop ultimately resulted in publication of a report (a 92 page paper) by many of the participants that thoroughly assessed all lines of evidence (Sherwood et al, 2020). A key result of this paper was to reduce the likely range of climate sensitivity values to 2.6 oC to 3.9 oC. While Lewis was an invited participant to the 2015 Workshop, he was not a coauthor on this paper. The Sherwood et al. paper strongly influenced the IPCC AR6’s assessment of climate sensitivity.
Lewis’ paper critiqued the methods used in the Sherwood et al. paper, finding significant errors, inconsistencies and other shortcomings. Lewis remedied these shortcomings and also revised key input data, almost entirely to reflect more recent evidence. The results of Lewis’ analysis determined a likely range of 1.75 to 2.7oC for climate sensitivity. The central estimate from Lewis’ analysis is 2.16 oC, which is well below the IPCC AR6 likely range. This large reduction relative to Sherwood et al. shows how sensitive climate sensitivity estimates are to input assumptions. Lewis’ analysis implies that climate sensitivity is more likely to be below 2 oC than it is to be above 2.5 oC.
The lower estimates of climate sensitivity determined by Nic Lewis have profound implications for climate models and projections of warming for the 21st century. Climate models used in the IPCC AR6 had values of climate sensitivity ranging from 1.8oC to 5.6oC. The IPCC AR6 judged that some of the climate models had values of climate sensitivity that were too high. Hence the AR6 selected only the climate models with reasonable values of climate sensitivity to be used in projections of 21st century climate change. Lewis’ analysis indicates that a majority of climate models used in the IPCC AR6 have values higher than the likely range.
Nic Lewis has authored ten peer-reviewed papers on climate sensitivity. Lewis’ latest paper is entitled ‘Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence’. It can be freely downloaded here. A detailed explanatory article about the paper is available here.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/20/...enges-ipccs-claims-about-climate-sensitivity/
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Thanks for confirming what I said about fertilizers.
We all know more CO2 increases plant growth. In fact, the world has become 14% greener since whitey started screaming about CO2. And you white libs hate that truth.
"The amount of benefit a crop receives depends on its type. Wheat, barley and rice for example benefit more from higher carbon dioxide concentrations than corn."
Furthermore, as I already said, the studies are NOT providing the details. They speak in generalities to hide their ignorance and they admit they don't know why or how much less "protein, zinc, and iron" there is.
It is obvious that CO2 will increase growth rates, yet they denied the plants and trees additional fertilizer in order to negatively skew the results.
Try posting some real science, NOT this fudge factor BS.
Imbecile! Your solution is NOT to diminish the pollutants or the deforestation/urbanization, but to increase artificial fertilizer as a constant band-aid?
For your education:
Environmental Implications of Excess Fertilizer and Manure on Water Quality
(NM1281, Reviewed August 2022)
https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/ex...the depletion,through runoff and soil erosion.
And either you're just too willfully ignorant or a bad liar. From my link: "...On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.
" .... Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels, according to Meyers."
"
Anyone with a rational, objective mind who can read carefully comprehensively can easily see through your repetitive, myopic drivel. In addition, that you can't resist throwing in your obsessive racism as some sort of validation for your ignorance just confirms the erroneous basis of your screed.
You're the perfect Big Dumb Dog mascot for corporate flunkies, MAGA mooks and racist rabble. Carry on.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Sorry to inform you, but the consensus of valid, well documented scientific evidence proving climate change is NOT hinged on the few predictive books (that proved wrong) from the 1970's or some generalized sayings from Greta Thurnberg.
I'll ask you a question that I asked the late Queen of England's former Scientific Advisor a couple of years ago; Are you saying that over 2 centuries of increasing industrial exhaust, car exhaust (i.e., smoke stacks), deforestation and urbanization has only a negligible effect on the eco-system?