Climate change hoax COLLAPSES

Post Reply New Topic

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures.

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

If I may go -aspi-pedantic, I should point out that if climate change really is a hoax, it should take under 10 minutes for anyone to find the name of the man who cooked up this hoax.

Yet nobody ever does.

Worth noting that both the articles above are published by climate denying outlets. I would recommend reading the sidebar on "ClimateScienceNews": headlines include "Climate change scientists tout “benefits” of geoengineering (chemtrails) in renewed push to pollute the atmosphere, dim the sun and freeze the planet", "New Mexico passes stealth “Green New Deal” law that will implode its economy, just as the state is being overrun with lawless illegals", and "Corporate media accidentally admits higher CO2 levels were present on planet Earth millions of years before humankind ever existed". ZeroHedge, similarly, is a well-known conspiracy website.

Now, just because these websites are conspiracy sites doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong on this, but it does mean we need to be critical when reading their work and aware of the slant they put on their articles, preferring sensationalism to realism. Indeed, the fact that both articles spend as much time criticising politicians as they do reporting on the science is something of a giveaway that they aren't being even-handed.

Here's a review of the scientific evidence behind the cosmic ray stuff. While it doesn't include the Kobe paper, it's nonetheless important background:
https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-ray ... vanced.htm

tl;dr: evidence suggests that current cosmic ray activity is, if anything, having a slight cooling effect.

Now, on cloud cover - the article cited to support that line of argument is very sparse on detail and doesn't establish the causal link they claim. This article is a good introduction to the role of clouds in climatology: https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

This article from Time Magazine is a bit more accessible: http://content.time.com/time/health/art ... 48,00.html

tl;dr: as the world warms, cloud cover reduces. Models which account for this effect, such as the Hadley Centre's, are amongst the most pessimistic.

That doesn't look like a very legitimate news site, kind of looks like some angry right wing blog.

Climate change is probably real (as is the fact that manmade carbon dioxide contributes somewhat to this), but it's not gonna change the fact that it's largely a hysteria. Private companies did more for the environment than millions of politicians have for decades. If you wanna leave a smaller carbon footprint, buy clothes less often, learn to repair household items (to the extent this can be done), and eat food that's grown locally. If politicians genuinely wanted to reduce manmade contributions do global warming, they'd give nuclear power a second chance.

Climate change should not be used as an excuse to enforce an authoritarian system onto people. Social differences and class struggle is very real too. That still doesn't justify brutal and authoritarian communist governments like North Korea. Politicians tried to implement similar systems all over Europe during the interwar period. They never succeeded thanks to the people.

Must admit that I don't really see the connection.

Who owns the "Climate Change News" website, and why are they concealing their identities?

The connection is that politicians often distort the truth as leverage to gain power. Another example is terrorism; politicians and bureaucrats are now chanting this "nothing to hide nothing to fear" BS again, and the EU wants to store your entire internet history. Airports have a security routine that would make Stasi proud, and the customs will snoop around in whatever you try to import, no matter how harmless it is. Banks these days think you fund terrorism, sell drugs, or cheat on the taxes if you want to make a 500 dollar withdraw or deposit.

Terrorism is extremely rare, and the terrorist paranoia is just another excuse by the powerful to become more powerful. Politicians serve themselves and not the people.

I think it's fair to say that most politicians aren't distorting the truth on climate change. Some aren't going far enough, granted, but I'm unaware of a significant politician who is taking things too far. To my knowledge, no major economies are setting net zero targets for before 2040 and they're generally aiming for 2050 (which is the target scientists are setting to have a 50% chance of keeping warming below 1.5 degrees). It would be fair to say that there is a significant section of the public that would like a greater level of ambition, but the politicians seem to either be taking an evidence-based approach or not being ambitious enough.

On nuclear power - ten years ago it looked like our best option. Now we're seeing much faster progress in competing technologies while nuclear stagnates (meaning price increases). It seems like we'll soon be at a point where it is cheaper to produce electricity using solar and wind and store the excess.

Feel free to visit Scandinavia. Toll charges can be as high as 500 dollars per month for single people, gasoline is three times as expensive, despite the fact that salaries are lower than in the states. It's over-ambitious, especially given that no politician gives a damn about cruiseships, container ships and the stuff that actually matters.



Good luck getting a politician to build that. You can't milk a windmill or a solar plant the way you milk the middle class people.

Politicians are building them. Denmark is one of the world leaders in wind power. Sweden and Norway also both have largely decarbonised power supplies - believe Norway is 98% decarbonised and Sweden... all the sources I can find are making me do the maths and aren't separating out the smaller sources of electricity but 90% seems to be produced by wind, nuclear, and hydro. Even the UK, which historically had one of the dirtiest electricity supplies in Europe, now gets over 50% of its power from clean sources and sometimes doesn't need coal for days on end. At this point wind and solar don't even need government subsidy, the market is capable of supporting them and they produce cheaper electricity.

Not sure what you mean by "toll charges". In the UK those would usually refer to more expensive roads. What are they charges on in this context?

It's true that many governments conveniently ignore international shipping and aviation, because these are the trickiest things to decarbonise. But those are relatively small sources of carbon emissions in most countries, even major transport hubs like the UK and the Netherlands. Nonetheless, Norway and Sweden both seem to have strategies for reducing emissions from flight and shipped freight, and Denmark has reduced shipping emissions by nearly 20% since 2008.

It's worth noting that Norway's per capita carbon production is larger than China's who is the largest total producer of carbon on the planet (The U.S. is second). Decarbonizing energy production makes nice headlines (and a significant dent), but it's only a fraction of carbon emissions.

All of which were built long before both the glibal warming hysteria and the bloating of the Scandinavian bureaucracy. Furthermore, it was built long before toll charges, CO2 quotas or anything like that.



In that case it proves that private companies get the job done a lot better than politicians who like to tell the people what they think is best for them.



Toll charges refer to booths where you pay to use the road. Essentially it means that the politicians get to use you as a credit card.



No. You can build charging cables that ships can use to get electricity from land when docked. It's a huge environmental problem these days that ships let their engines idle to generate electricity. Engines can also be upgraded, fitted with turbochargers and so on. Lastly, ferries can also run on battery or hydrogen.



The 13 biggest container ships across the globe release more carbon dioxide than all the cars combined worldwide. A large, idling cruiseship that's docked will release more particles than a million cars. Coupled with coal power plants, ships are the major cause of greenhouse gasses in any country with a coastline.



Not very impressive considering how much cleaner cars have become since 2008. Politicians in Scandinavia have added a tax per flight seat. In Norway, it's because they've blown the budget on several projects and refuse to fire bureaucrats and cut down on unnecessary findings instead; Sweden and Denmark also have similar (yet less serious) problems. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

American politicians blew the budget on war, the EU blew it on bureaucracy and paper mills. Now they need somewhere to get more money from.

Last edited by Kurgan on 14 Jul 2019, 2:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

That's what you get when politicians are more interested in showing of rather than doing an actual effort.

As I'm sure you're aware, China's problem has never been emissions per capita, it has a large rural population that brings down the per-capita emissions.

Norway's problems, for what it is worth, are in the production of metals and chemicals and the handling of waste. It is the leading European country when it comes to transport electrification but its economy is quite reliant on carbon-intensive primary and heavy secondary industries.