Excerpts from a Zero Hedge article; CNN Analyst Suggests Inflation Is Needed to Achieve Green Agenda Even NASA and the NOAA openly admit that average global temperatures have only increased 1 degree Celsius in the past century. Yes, that’s 1 degree we’re supposed to be terrified of. Keep in mind that the official temperature record used by climate scientists started in the 1880s, so when the NOAA says that a recent temperature was “the hottest on record,” they are using a scale of a little over a century. That’s a tiny sliver of time in the vast weather history of the Earth. In fact, the Earth today is rather cool compared to the numerous warming periods of the past, and these spikes in heat coincided with thriving expanses of life. And, no man-made carbon emissions either. There is zero proof that man-made carbon is the cause of the Earth’s current warming cycle. Climate scientists, who receive large sums of money through funding as long as they toe the party line, argue that man-made carbon can be the only cause of climate change because “carbon rises as temperatures rise.” In other words, correlation = causation. This is not real science. They make no mention of the fact that warming also tends to lead to more life on the planet, and thus more carbon. The facts of Earth’s climate history are generally ignored for the sake of ideology. We are meant to believe that all those other warming periods were different, and this time warming (minimal warming) is caused only by car exhaust and industrialized cow farts? Perhaps it is no coincidence that inflation is being exploited by Green ideologues and globalists as an excuse for carbon taxes? Maybe that was the plan all along? High prices in gas force the public into mass transportation and less independence (only rich people will be able to afford electric cars). The public will be priced out of meat in their diet and be forced into vegetarianism/veganism (laboratory produced proteins lack the fats and fatty acids the human brain needs from real meats to function properly). The public will be priced out of private property and owning a home, forcing them into mass housing systems. They will be priced out of most retail goods, forcing them to accept the “Shared Economy” model created by the World Economic Foundation. And, they might be priced out of the economy altogether, forcing them to accept Universal Basic Income and total dependency on the government, not to mention having a family would be impossible, so the population control agenda is served as well. The inflation issue is a panacea, but only for globalists and Green cultists, which is probably why they can barely contain their excitement when discussing it.
Even NASA and the NOAA openly admit that average global temperatures have only increased 1 degree Celsius in the past century. What am I missing, or perhaps I miss read it? Go here: Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov
The temperatures recorded prior to the 1970s are problematic at best. The method of taking sea water temperature changed in the 1920s, so everything before that was on a different scale. We can now take the surface temperature of the Earth's surface form a satellite, but prior to the use of satellites, temperatures were taken by unreliable people using unreliable instruments and could only measure where they were, Ships never covered the surface of the oceans, and few of those took temperatures. Arguments about Earth's temperature since the 1970s are somewhat valid, but before that, the statistics are manipulated and largely malarkey.
Because the science is complex, as skeptics argue, then only a slight increase in surface temperature anomaly is needed. This is explained by the National Academy of Sciences, and by Berkeley Earth, an independent group set up by skeptics. In the easiest way I can explain the issue, here's how it works: CO2 plays both a feedback and forcing factor. That means it will go up if it's naturally warmer, but it can amplify warming because of positive feedback. That it means it does not have to be the main reason for trapped heat because it has a forcing effect on others, such as water vapor. That also means it doesn't have to go up significantly. There are more details here (updated 2020): https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25733/climate-change-evidence-and-causes-update-2020 From an independent group funded by climate change skeptics, with ongoing studies: http://berkeleyearth.org/archive/summary-of-findings/ Finally, in light of a point raised in another thread, note the difference between global warming and climate change: the first refers to a slight warming in surface temperature and the second refers to the effects of that slight warming, which is anomalous weather conditions accompanied by positive feedback loops. Those weather conditions can involve not only more warming during summer but also more cooling during winter. Positive feedback includes slight increases in water levels in some areas, which combined with more precipation may lead to stronger wind during hurricanes, and thus storm surges, which is what happened with Typhoon Haiyan.
About surface temperature reconstructions, the NAS also has a major review of multiple studies: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/c...ature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years From what I read, there are improvements to be done, but overall there is a high level of confidence in most of the reconstructions to show that significant levels of warming have been taking place during the last few decades compared to the past. More important is not just the role of warming but of increased precipitation on climate change.
It is all about controlling the people. Notice all the hypocrisy involved by the so-called experts. Notice China could care less about emissions or green energy. How much climate change is Biden's war in Ukraine causing? Why are politicians and politically motivated scientists so interested in climate change and green energy? How many times do engineers and scientists have to tell us that it is impossible for everything to go electric and the amount of environmental damage just mining the copper, aluminum, and other minerals and elements necessary for even a 50% electric world would be catastrophic. The grass is green, not energy. Inflation is necessary so the Democrats can seize more power and smash any opposition. Poor people are easier to control than the rich. A green agenda can never be achieved because it is based on nonsense, not science. Practical energy is not green energy. Don't be duped by the hijacking of the word green attached to energy.
We're talking about 1 degree C, right? Even if the data is right and the worst models are right, and I don't think they are, this is not serious warming given that there have been periods of significantly higher warming historically.
You are correct, @Faye Fox. It is about controlling how we live, not saving the planet. If the "conspirators", like Al Gore really believed what thy preach, they wouldn't live in the biggest energy-consuming private dwelling in the state, nor fly to the "climate change" meetings in private jets, or commercial jets for that matter. They would only attend meetings they could walk to...but the CO2 they emit in that process, as well as the flatulence they produce, would still contribute to the "climate change".
Retired noaa scientist...john bates....whistle blower on the hoax ...noaa data was purposely manipulated for political reasons
That image is a recreation of a map of permanent ice coverage of North America 1000s of years ago. I remember a teacher in elementary school in Ohio telling us that northern Ohio used to be covered in a glacier. And that caused all the gravel pits there. ..Smithsonian Images Label: . Glacier ice covers North America 126 thousand years ago. Ron Blakey
If we are to take the American left at face value, we would have to believe that global warming is only exacerbated when Americans profit from oil production or from affordable oil prices. While discouraging oil exploration, drilling, or refining on American soil, American leftists in both political parties will encourage all of these things on the part of any other country. When the Saudis drill oil, that doesn't contribute to global warming, but if it's drilled in Alaska, the world is going to come to an early end. The same is true of the American leftist view of pretty much any other issue of importance to them. While plastic has to be discouraged or banned in any uses that might have actual convenience to American consumers, we can't buy anything that doesn't come encased in several layers of unnecessary and annoying plastic. We're supposed to believe that Americans drive to the ocean after dining at a fast-food restaurant so that they can shove their plastic straws up the noses of sea turtles, hence plastic straws must be banned, while it's okay that Asian countries routinely dump their plastic waste into the ocean. There's nothing to see there.