Why Global Warming Alarmism Isn't Science

[John Reece]

cnsnews.com

July 2, 2014

By Craig Bannister

Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV [...]

[John Reece]

The New American

Thursday, 22 May 2014 11:00

By Alex Newman

[...]

Excerpts:

[John Reece]

Powerline

POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER



Science is a method, not a set of dogmas. The scientific method is pretty simple: you suggest a hypothesis, calculate what facts in the real world must be true if the hypothesis is correct, and then check the hypothesis against reality. If the hypothesis implies false propositions of fact, it is wrong. Case closed.

[...]

[John Reece]

Why the Hysteria About Climate Change? Follow the Money

John Hinderaker introduced the topic of the OP of this thread; in the article below he returns to the topic with the second of two articles in the last two days.

From Powerline

POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER

WHY THE HYSTERIA ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE? FOLLOW THE MONEY

Global warming hysteria, as we wrote yesterday, is not science. The models on which it rests are known to be wrong, since they are refuted by observation. So why, then, does climate change hype persist?

[...]

Excerpt:

The most critical number for global warming/climate change is the sensitivity of the Earth to a doubling of CO2, which is called Climate Sensitivity. A 1979 report to the US National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that Climate Sensitivity would range from 1.5oC to 4.5oC, about 3 to 8oF.

Since then, five major reports by the IPCC show government-funded science on Climate Sensitivity has not advanced in 35 years. The latest IPCC report, AR-5, still shows the same range of uncertainty. Clearly, there is something wrong with the assertion that CO2 has a significant impact on Earth’s temperatures, or with the procedures used by the IPCC, or both.

SEPP believes that the problems are both in the assertion and in the procedures. Studies, largely ignored by the IPCC, estimate that the Climate Sensitivity will be below 1.5oC, perhaps significantly below 1oC. These estimates do not justify alarm about global warming/climate change, or the continued massive expenditures on a non-problem.

[Leonhard]

So basically Sylas wrote a great rebuttal to John Reece's opening post, and his response is to post multiple spam link posts? Is he trying to burry the discussion under garbage?

When Truthseeker started doing this on a regular basis the moderators mandated that he do it in one single thread he got on his own.

Source: Board Etiquette

Debates (points for your position) made via weblink are not allowed. Weblinks may be used when a substantive summary of the point being made is posted on the board with a link given for further information regarding your position. Remember responsive arguments are to be as personal as possible, not "cut and paste" dueling articles. This can be avoided by giving one's personal analysis along with an article, or just quoting the specifically relevant portions and showing relevance.

© Copyright Original Source

[John Reece]

So basically Sylas wrote a great rebuttal to John Reece's opening post, and his response is to post multiple spam link posts? Is he trying to burry the discussion under garbage?

When Truthseeker started doing this on a regular basis the moderators mandated that he do it in one single thread he got on his own.

That's the only reason there have been any additions to this thread subsequent to the OP and sylas' response: I was asked by an owner to have all my "alarmism" related threads and posts combined into a single thread related to global warming / climate change "alarmism".

I have told an owner, and I hereby state to the entire team of TWeb owners and staff: If my threads and posts are unacceptable, just tell me so, and I will happily cease all posting in any forum other then Biblical Languages 301 ― and there too if it will make TWeb a happier place.

At age 80+, with more health problems than I can list at any given time, I am very limited in terms of activity I can engage in, on or off the Internet. One thing I can no longer cope with ― to much extent if any ― is argumentation. If that disqualifies me from acceptable participation in any forum or the entire website, so be it.

I will report this post and abide by the response I receive.

[Leonhard]

I wouldn't mind John Reece posting a lot of news articles as long as he had one dump thread like Truthseeker had to put it all in. As it is, he's opening three times as many threads with basically the same format and content (Global Warming Dissent News).

At any rate I'm sorry to hear of your health problems John. I'll pray for you.

[mossrose]

Moderated By: mossy

We are allowing John to post "climate alarmist" links in this thread. He is free to post other climate-related issues in the appropriate fora as he wishes. If people want to respond to any of his posts, they are welcome to do so. If you have any issues with this, please take them up in the padded room, or pm me and I will set you straight.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[RumTumTugger]

that glare was meant for seer right mossy?

[mossrose]

that glare was meant for seer right mossy?

I forget. But it wasn't for John.

[John Reece]

Global Warming Alarmists Are Getting Desperate

Just to carry on with the official TWeb designation of this thread as a repository of news regarding global warming alarmism, here is an item that I do not think has been included in the list heretofore.

From Forbes:

For climate-change alarmists, the heat is on… their foreheads. Their desperation is starting to bead up and roll into their collars like flop sweat. California Gov. Jerry Brown’s absurd contention that LAX Airport is going to be turned into a bathtub because of climate change is the latest example of how know-nothings in the media, entertainment and politics are reaching for ever more questionable arguments as they continue to fail to stoke fears in an American public that, contrary to their hateful claims, largely believes in global warming but isn’t particularly worried about it. [...]

Excerpt:

Moreover, even that laughable 97 percent figure was arrived at via highly tendentious means some have described as “doctoring.” Yet even 100 percent metaphysical certainty on the statement “humans are causing some amount of global warming” doesn’t actually tell us what U.S. energy policy should be. Sorry, alarmists, but you aren’t going to drown out the realists any more than the Atlantic Ocean is going to drown Miami.

[John Reece]

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Concluding paragraphs:

[John Reece]

The article cited in the OP is wrong. The inference of global warming, and the human causes for that, are solidly science.

₂ emissions produced by human activity.

It is logical to assume that human activity has exacerbated current warming to some degree; however, solid science does not indicate that human activity ― as only one of many factors known to affect the climate ― is an existential threat warranting massive reductions (80% reduction cited as a government-mandated goal) in the use of affordable-for-ordinary-people sources of energy.

From the OP:

The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win.

That is not contrary to solid science, but is rather related to "fudge factors" in the climate models. See here and (three pages) here.

[Truthseeker]

(80% reduction cited as a government-mandated goal) in the use of affordable-for-ordinary-people sources of energy.

Solar power is finally starting to make a sizeable contribution to the energy industry. In the first quarter of this year 74% of all new power-generating capacity was solar (GTM Research and Solar Energy Industries Association). I would not be greatly surprised to see a huge drop in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 volume by 2020.

[Sparko]

Solar power is finally starting to make a sizeable contribution to the energy industry. In the first quarter of this year 74% of all new power-generating capacity was solar (GTM Research and Solar Energy Industries Association). I would not be greatly surprised to see a huge drop in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 volume by 2020.

I seriously doubt that. And will you please start giving links to your claims and quotes? It has become a real problem with you. If you can't cite your sources better, then don't bother making the claims.