Chatham Chatlist Highlights

The Best of the Chatham Chatlist

Chatham Chatlist Highlights header image 2

Climate change (aka Global Warming) claims are unsupportable on the evidence

April 6th, 2017 · 1 Comment

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:27 -0500
From: chathammatters
Subject: Climate Change (Chatham County Commission) response to Gina Robertson

Gina, Thank you for your reply, I appreciate your thoughtful response. However you make a number of claims which are unsupportable on the evidence.

You say that “The overwhelming consensus of those people (who study climate change) is that climate change is happening, and that it is influenced by human actions”.  Yet you offer no proof of this claim. Today you will find in surveys of actual scientists show that a majority conclude, on the evidence, that CO2 and Temperature are unrelated (60+ %), with a minority saying that they are related (this minority represents your consensus view).

You are most likely unaware that there is an ongoing project which documents, by name and profession scientists who have gone on record against the theory: <>  It is well worth your time reading in detail why they oppose, and is based on actual evidence, not belief.  The science is quite clear.  I notice you made no attempt to refute any of the facts which I laid out, they are each observable, measurable and repeatable.

Even amongst those who say that that mankind may have an effect on warming, there is no consensus amongst them as to what the effect actually is, or how large the effect is, or how it works, since there is no quantifiable data to support the hypothesis.  As was pointed out yesterday, 97% of carbon emissions annually come from Volcanic activity and Forrest Fires, which can vary quite a bit year by year.  The CO2 emissions from these sources are exactly identical to the relatively small amount put out by the total aggregate activity of man including breathing.  We have no correlation between CO2 and Temperature. And a very small annual contribution to CO2 from all animal life plus the boring of fossil fuels (3% total).

You say that “the majority of published papers on the subject support the notion that mankind is causing climate change.  But you fail to mention the 2009 exposures of fraud coming from the Hadley Climate Research Unit, then followed by similar exposures at New Zealand’s NWIA, Australia’s climate center, NOAA, the Climategate emails, and later Climategate 2.0, which have only confirmed the doubts arising from the obviously NON-scientific methods employed by the Anthropogenic Global Warming supporters.  These are the “experts” you believe that you can rely on to inform your “beliefs”?

The Climategate (I and II) email dumps fully expose an widespread and aggressive campaign to prevent the publication of articles countering the “consensus” view, including emailing to each other advice on how best to intimidate publications into suppressing countervailing papers.  They also expose an active collaboration to alter data sets to conform to the theory (something the un-altered temperature and CO2 data by itself didn’t), and how to rig the climate models to come up with results which conform better to the theory.

You further say that “nobody is going along with scientific consensus today to avoid being cast into prison”.  Really? We are getting close to that point, consider the following:

  • Evidently you are unaware that 17 AG’s from the ultra liberal states + AG for Virgin Islands calling themselves AG’s United for Clean Power, have been filing law suits against companies and other entities for publishing research into climate change which doesn’t agree with the “consensus”.

  • You are also unaware that a number of publications are being sued for publishing articles showing the depth and nature of false statements, falsified data, falsified statistics, and falsified charts coming from certain climate researchers like Mann (famous phony hockey stick chart).

  • Further Obama’s administrators/secretaries of EPA, Interior, and Energy all made it clear when taking office that there was no room in the administration for anyone who didn’t believe in “Climate Change”, in other words put aside scientific evidence.. speak out, lose your job.

  • Further still, the Obama administration harassed, intimidated and ultimately fired a top scientist at the Department of Energy who dared to counter the administration’s stated position on climate change with facts (specifically by publishing evidence and facts related to the impact of radiation, specific research which definitively disproves elements of the Forcing theory of Global Warming)

  • One more example – In 2016, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.”

I have laid out the scientific evidence in a clear and easy to understand fashion yesterday, each piece easily verifiable.  You can check each and every fact, but you likely won’t, as you’ve said yourself.. you don’t have time.  It used to be considered healthy and necessary to question your own beliefs, if the facts bear your beliefs out, your belief grows stronger.. however, if the facts don’t bear them out.. why exactly do you still hold on to those beliefs?

Tags: Musings

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 Erik Davis // Apr 7, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    I typed this up for a person who shared this on facebook:
    A few issues with this, and it is quite long:
    1. 30K scientists is actually a very small percent of all the scientists in the field worldwide. It sounds large until you realize there are millions who accept it. That said, a many of the signers have no formal education directly related to the field but have just said they know what they are talking about.
    2. The paper it cites has issues as well. I only take data up to 2000, at best 2006, and only looks at select locations on earth instead of the global average. One of the graphs even proves a correlation to global warming but is used as “proof” it is wrong because the data is taken out of context (i.e. it pretends the US is the only land mass in the US, only take data from 1880-2000, doesn’t take into account the increase is the 1920’s-1930’s for industry, and pretends the overall increase seen means nothing because when we lowered our emissions temporarily the temperature dropped slightly and then started rising again when we started putting more emissions out.).
    3. It references the 1970’s “global cooling” that was never an accepted thing. Most work during that time was talking about warming, but the media picked up on the cooling talk and blew it out of proportion.
    4. The solar activity graph doesn’t take into account the emissions of CO2 during the time the temperature of the US only (and not the world) dropped, and it doesn’t take into account how the solar activity is down now yet the temperature is still going up.
    5. The original link you put gives an easily debunked lie. It says volcanoes emit 97% of all CO2. The reality is they emit somewhere around 200 million tons and forest fires around 300 million tons while man is adding around 24 billion tons of CO2 annually. In a nice ironic twist, many of the forest fires we see now are caused by man, from man making them to man altering temperature and precipitation patterns due to climate change cause fires to happen to often to man suppressing fires to the point as they did in the US. The last part may seem odd, but stick with me. We used to try to stop all forest fires, hence Smokey the Bear. The issue as that we ended up altering the natural cycles of fire in the forests. This caused some trees to not reproduce and let invasive species grow and clutter the forest floor. Now when fires start they get into the canopy of the forest instead of just burn the low shrubs and cause massive wildfires that get out of control. This is a direct result of man.
    6. Back to the “petition” your post cites:
    a. the petition tries to say that the earth isn’t warming because it hasn’t warmed as much as the difference between the day and night cycles of a landlocked state. The problems with this are massive. You don’t say there has been no warmth because it hasn’t beaten the 30 degree shift in day and night cycles, much less use a landlocked state that moderately north of the equator that is not attenuated by ocean influences and sees larger differences due to its latitude.
    b. It uses the US rainfall to say there has been no change globally despite its graph showing an increase in US rainfall.
    c. It says tornado activity is decreasing but only has data to 2000. It mentions nothing of intensity.
    d. It says hurricanes are down in the US and ignores the larger increase in the Pacific ocean along with the increase in intensity. Again the data is decades old.
    e. The graph trying to show no increase in sea level shows clear increases in sea level.
    f. It tries to use the 1997 el nino as proof there has been no warming. The problem here is that you don’t compare the most aberrant year as the baseline for comparison. It is also based on old data, and we are currently above that year anyway on a global average.
    g. It tries to say CO2 isn’t bad because it helps plants. There are many issues here. While some plants do see an increase in growth due to CO2 when it is taken alone, the “study” isn’t taking into account alterations in precipitation, alterations in temperature, alterations in competitive advantage (i.e. some plants grow better due to different stresses and can overtake plants that were doing fine before the alterations by increased CO2), alterations in growth periods due to changed energy budget, alterations in growth locations, alterations in pest growth periods and locations (i.e. beetles and animals), alterations in soil chemistry, alterations in ocean chemistry, impacts of altered ocean chemistry including altered marine animal/plant growth patterns and locations, etc.
    h. It says US forests have increased from 1950-2000 and pretends it is all form CO2 and not from man preserving and expanding them.
    i. It uses 2005 data to say we need fossil fuels no matter the impact which doesn’t take into account the booming renewable energy sector of the past decade.
    j. It tries to say that renewables are expensive, but again it is using near 2 decade old data and is comparing non-subsidized renewable prices to massively subsidized fossil fuel prices.
    7. Back to the original post this links to:
    a. It cites climategate as proof despite it being proven there was nothing wrong. The only issues came from ignorant people misunderstanding what actually was being said. A big sticking point was people thinking we altered data. What actually happened was tree rings in certain locations did not reflect the actual temperature we had from first hand data. Thus these rings were not used. That is not altering data. It is maintaining correct data.

Leave a Comment

Fatal error: Call to undefined function adsensem_ad() in /home3/genefoto/public_html/chathamchatlist/highlights/wp-content/themes/cutline-3-column-split-11/cutline-3-column-split-11/single.php on line 41