Climate revolutionaries

They will say anything and do anything if it meets their revolutionary goal to transform America. They have been telling you one thing when they knew the evidence, or it was their duty to know the evidence, contradicted their policies. (We are talking about hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.)
Evidence from the world’s best sampling of surface temperatures shows that temperatures have been declining slightly in North America. Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Brian Schatz, Al Gore and others have been telling Americans that temperatures were rising and climate change/global warming is bad and caused by man, and specifically caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels.  They have thrown a lot of our money at a problem that does not exist.
But these graphs (below) destroy their case. This is devastating news for politicians and those connected to them. The average global temperature has barely moved, according to NASA’s GISS modeling team in New York City. Further, if these graphs are overlayed with CO2 concentration trend, which is steeply sloped for the entire period, then the alarmist theory of catastrophic global warming is wrong, that is, the theory is scientifically falsified. In addition, NASA imaging shows that Earth has been greening as CO2 is rising during the period but temperatures have been virtually flat during the period.  Climate is relatively insensitive to CO2 concentration.  Plants are sensitive.
Compounding embarrassment for Democrat socialists, NOAA is charged by a respected internal whistleblower with faking temperature data in a peer-reviewed article so that temperatures appear to be rising. (If in fact that were real data, but it is not, it would have been evidence against “the pause.” Faked evidence was conveniently published in a science journal to influence politicians and public opinion in the 2015 UN Paris Climate talks. This is a RICO act crime.
The best satellite temperature data show only very slowly rising global temperatures, meanwhile CO2 concentration in air has been rising steeply. CO2 and therefore burning of fossil fuels are not causing significant warming.
Why do these politicians want us to pay billions of dollars for the rest of our lives, not to mention disrupting the social order, to solve a climate crisis that does not exist? James Woods leads us to the answer.

About budbromley

Bud is a retired life sciences executive. Bud's entrepreneurial leadership exceeded three decades. He was the senior business development, marketing and sales executive at four public corporations, each company a supplier of analytical and life sciences instrumentation, software, consumables and service. Prior to those positions, his 19 year career in Hewlett-Packard Company's Analytical Products Group included worldwide sales and marketing responsibility for Bioscience Products, Global Accounts and the International Olympic Committee, as well as international management assignments based in Japan and Latin America. Bud has visited and worked in more than 65 countries and lived and worked in 3 countries.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Climate revolutionaries

  1. budbromley says:

    Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.’


  2. budbromley says:

    MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.’ – ‘When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.’


  3. budbromley says:

    Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?’


  4. Today’s Temperature Anomaly map:

    Since the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is the size of Mexico, when it slides into the sea, the displacement waves will be catastrophic. This is not speculation – it’s history repeating itself.


    • budbromley says:

      (1) The Larson C ice shelf is already floating. It will not “slide into the sea.” It is already floating in the Weddell Sea and displacing almost all of the water that it can displace. (2) The Larson C ice shelf is about the size of Mexico, about 48,000 km^2, but only about 10% of the total area of Larsen C ice shelf is likely to calve off at this time. (Hodgson et al.2006) All of Larson C it is not breaking away. (3) The western most section of the Larson C ice shelf is still attached to the glaciers which are on land. The very large part in the eastern Larson C, that is the 10% eastern section that is splitting away from the western part, could become dangerous if it floats into shipping lanes and currents in the “roaring 40’s.” (4) If and when the western-most part of the Larson C ice shelf calves off of the glaciers on the Antarctic Pennensula, then structural forces supporting the glacier would be reduced on the Weddell Sea side of the glaciers and then there could be an acceleration of the glaciers’ normal push to the sea. (6) Graphs of actual temperatures would useful. Temperature anomalies are not useful. Anomalies assume an average. But there are very few temperature measurement stations in Antarctica. Sampling is poor. Averaging of averages or averaging of averages of averages is not a valid math procedure. (7) There is no risk of significant rise in sea levels from this large calving. (8) The large body of the Larson C ice shelf is more than 100 meters high above sea level and could be as much as 800 meters deep beneath the Weddell Sea. That volume of water is already displaced. However, I could not find a map of the underwater topography of the Larson C ice mass which is calving. It could change its orientation when it becomes a giant iceberg (perhaps 4,800 km^2) floating free from the remainder of the Larson C shelf. It could roll or flip or rapidly break up into smaller pieces.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.