Problem: what do we do with the global warming religionists?

Anthropogenic warming WELL BELOW the potentially dangerous range has been reported by Idso (1998), Miskolczi (2007), Paltridge et al. (2009), Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009), Lindzen and Choi (2009, 2011), Spencer and Braswell (2010), Clark (2010), Kramm and Dlugi (2011), Lewis and Curry (2014), Skeie et al. (2014), Lewis (2015) and Volokin and ReLlez (2015), among others.

Estimates for CO2 “climate sensitivity” to CO2 in peer-reviewed science papers is declining over the years.

Climate-Sensitivity-Value-Estimates-Declining-Scafetta-2017

The so-called climate models, except the Russian one, are not producing accurate climate numbers even when known, measured climate facts are substituted for climate variables in the computer programs.

Climate models versus climate observations

 

The volume of ice at the poles is increasing, opposite the doom and gloom melt down scenarios by global warming proponents.

Arctic-sea-ice-volume-sham-predictions-2018

And there is evidence of slight cooling as has been predicted by Russian climate models and a growing number of scientists.

Cold

And there are reasonable theories to explain their cooling forecasts.

Climate Bicentenial component of Solar Irradiance

And we know scientifically and intuitively that warmer is better for humans and most other living things.  Weather-related fatalities are higher in colder weather and longivity is better in warmer climates.  The world is still waiting for the warmth promised more than three decades ago.

Flat temperature

The so-called “social benefits” of increasing CO2 are well known in both science and economics. 

benefits-of-increased-co2

 

Bezdek 2014 p127

The long term CO2 concentration trend has been in decline for millions of years.

CO2decline_FB_SSoAGW_Wrightstone

CO2 in the atmosphere is the only pathway for carbon, the building block for all cellular life on earth, to enter the food chain and since science has discovered that higher total CO2 concentration is making the planet greener, and since the human contribution of CO2 by our use of fossil fuels, concrete production, etc is negligible to the growth rate of  total CO2 concentration, and since real pollution (non-CO2 pollution) from fossil is

Fossil Fuel Impact on Environment

steeply declining as fuels and engines are engineered for cleaner burning, then…

A rational person – even a politician or talking head media thing – would logically conclude that something is wrong with so-called climate scientists and their supporters.  Proponents might conclude that they might be included in the inevitable list of defendants.  But, the there is a problem with the clique of climate scientists and their supporters.

The problem is: what does society do with these hysterical deniers of reality and facts?  What will replace the billions of dollars per year in the economy which has been flowing to these flat-earth religionists and social engineers?  It would be a big hole in the GDP if  these billions of dollars were stopped.

In America at least the two wings of the big government political party have decided to borrow and spend on infrastructure, roads, bridges, powergrid, airports, powerplants, pipelines, that sort of thing, rather than waste it on more failed computer models and modelers and distribution of public weath to their cronies and the so-called sustainable or green projects supported by the UN and the EU and their other co-religionists.

cartoon-green-hoax

Where do citizens sign up to pay our share of engagement fees to class-action plaintiffs attorneys to sue these mendacious religionists and benevolent liars for billions of dollars in damages, triple that amount, due to their fraud?  The infrastructure fixes will take decades.  Meanwhile, some people will have increasing heating bills and will need to recover the money that has been nefariously directed to millionaires and their cronies under false pretenses.

As the Editorial in Investors Business Daily stated it March 29, 2018, titled “The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind the Global Warming Scare,” “Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, bt it has an important job: It measures U.S. temperatures.  Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion.  Its data are fraudulent.”  Then there is the carbon credit fraud.  Then there is the mail fraud solicitation of funds under false pretenses.

Attention and funds have been drained away from real issues by people who proclaimed themselves to be experts and some colluded together to blacklist and threaten those who did not believe in their religion.   And now they are essentially yelling “Fire!” in a theatre with no doors.  What do we do with them?


References:

Idso, S.B. 1998. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research 10: 69-82.

Miskolczi, F. 2007. Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the. Hungarian Meteorological Service 111: 1-40.

Paltridge, G., Arking, A. and Pook, M. 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 98: 351-359.

Gerlich, G. and Tscheuschner, R.D. 2009. Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B 23: 275-224.

Lindzen, R.S. and Choi, Y.S. 2009. On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL039628.

Lindzen, R.S. and Choi, Y.S. 2011. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47: 377-390.

Spencer, R.W. and Braswell, W.D. 2010. On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research 115: 10.1029/2009JD013371.

Clark, R. 2010. A null hypothesis for CO2. Energy and Environment 21: 171-200.

Kramm, G. and Dlugi, R. 2011. Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact. Natural Science3: 971-988.

Lewis, N. and Curry, J.A. 2014. The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates.Climate Dynamics 45: 1009-1023.

Skeie, R.B., Berntsen, T., Aldrin, M., Holdren, M. and Myhre, G. 2014. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth System Dynamics 5: 139-175.

Lewis, N. 2015. Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation. WCRP Grand Challenge Workshop: Earth’s Climate Sensitivities, Rindberg, Germany.

Volokin, D. and ReLlez, L. 2015. Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Advances in Space Research 10.1016/j.asr.2015.08.006.

Salby, Murry L. 2012. Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, 2nd Edition. ISBN-13: 978-0521767187.

 

 

About budbromley

Life sciences executive, retired
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Problem: what do we do with the global warming religionists?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.