Oz PM exposes UN led climate hoax

[agelbert]

UB debunks Snowleopard (sl)!

What a joke to present a graph of the last 18 years to say no warming in that period debunks global warming when those same years contai n all the hottest in history. Since 96. Now go ahead and expand those last 18 years back  the 50 million u say are relevant to show the real picture. And while u r at it lets see the ocean temps in the same period since 96 . Then tell the truth about who has conceded anything.

 

So again u ignore ocean temp talk about temp instead of climate. And tell us that the 50 million year trend is dOwn. But u got to leave out that 50 million downward turning sharply up since we started burning fossil fuels. So sl wtf is the skijump shape of the trend?  Why in the last 1oo yrs the trend ends. Why do u  have to present false graph claiming it goes to yr 2ooo when its only to 1950. Because  the steep climb upwards in the last 65 yrs would put the lie to it. As for your alternative explanation for wandering jetstream it ignores alaska and siberia shorts and t shirt winter weather.

 

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

So again u ignore ocean temp talk about temp instead of climate. And tell us that the 50 million year trend is dOwn. But u got to leave out that 50 million d ownward turning sharply up since we started burning fossil fuels. So sl wtf is the skijump shape of the trend?  Why in the last 1oo yrs the trend ends. Why do u  have to present false graph claiming it goes to yr 2ooo when its only to 1950. Because  the steep climb upwards in the last 65 yrs would put the lie to it. As for your alternative explanation for wandering jetstream it ignores alaska and siberia shorts and t shirt winter weather.

If you look at the periodicy it is obvious we were due for a temp uptick with or without fossil fuels.  We have still not exceeded the natural variability shown in the long term charts.

When I find a better graph I'll start using it. 

Obviously if deception was my intent, I could have neglected to disclose I was aware of the problem and pleaded ignorance if caught. That's not my style. 

The purpose of the chart is to show the millennial trend of decreasing peaks in warm periods and increasing lengths in cold periods.  Yes, if that graph is extended to present time it will show current warming (at Greenland) which will still be well short of the Medieval Warm Period's temps, and much less than earlier warm periods.

For some reason,  scientific dating convention YBP (Years Before Present) defines present currently at 2000, and formerly it was 1950.  Many older scientists did not change and are still using 1950.  This has caused many scientific documents to be published with those dates swapped due to editorial confusion (the editors being younger).  The error in the chart is of that character.  There is no attempt to deceive by me or the scientist.


Meridional winds obviously go both ways, and in the NH at the North end of a wind blowing from the South it will be warmer.  This will tend to heat the Arctic and taiga in spots, but overall the NH cools.  If my prognosis is correct, this process will accelerate over the next quarter century and NH temps two decades from now will approach 19th century values. (or colder if major volcanic eruptions occur.

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

UB debunks Snowleopard (sl)!

What a joke to present a graph of the last 18 years to say no warming in that period debunks global warming when those same years contai n all the hottest in history. Since 96. Now go ahead and expand those last 18 years back  the 50 million u say are relevant to show the real picture. And while u r at it lets see the ocean temps in the same period since 96 . Then tell the truth about who has conceded anything.

 

No. Obviously it has warmed since the Little Ice Age.  As I've said before that warming is "undeniable". 

The 18 year graph was in response to those who DENY "The Pause" or "Hiatus" depending what "side" they might be on.  The 18 years without warming does not say it didn't warm to that point, but obviously shows that warming has stopped.  Since CO2 is still increasing at about the rate it was increasing before the warming stopped, this further suggests CO2 did not cause that warming.

• Tweet

[Petty Tyrant]

UB debunks Snowleopard (sl)!

What a joke to present a graph of the last 18 years to say no warming in that period debunks global warming when those same years contai n all the hottest in history. Since 96. Now go ahead and expand those last 18 years back  the 50 million u say are relevant to show the real picture. And while u r at it lets see the ocean temps in the same period since 96 . Then tell the truth about who has conceded anything.

 

No. Obviously it has warmed since the Little Ice Age.  As I've said before that warming is "undeniable". 

The 18 year graph was in response to those who DENY "The Pause" or "Hiatus" depending what "side" they might be on.  The 18 years without warming does not say it didn't warm to that point, but obviously shows that warming has stopped.  Since CO2 is still increasing at about the rate it was increasing before the warming stopped, this further suggests CO2 did not cause that warming.

The african savannahs flora and fauna are in very poor shape now compared to 18 years ago. 18 years ago we did not have 45c heatwaves we break records on this every summer. The graph was not in response to anyone it was a standalone statement and purported to speaj for others while leaving out the consensus response of explanation which you still also fail to adress. Ocean heatsink and rising temp Therein.

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

UB debunks Snowleopard (sl)!

What a joke to present a graph of the last 18 years to say no warming in that period debunks global warming when those same years contai n all the hottest in history. Since 96. Now go ahead and expand those last 18 years back  the 50 million u say are relevant to show the real picture. And while u r at it lets see the ocean temps in the same period since 96 . Then tell the truth about who has conceded anything.

 

No. Obviously it has warmed since the Little Ice Age.  As I've said before that warming is "undeniable". 

The 18 year graph was in response to those who DENY "The Pause" or "Hiatus" depending what "side" they might be on.  The 18 years without warming does not say it didn't warm to that point, but obviously shows that warming has stopped.  Since CO2 is still increasing at about the rate it was increasing before the warming stopped, this further suggests CO2 did not cause that warming.

The african savannahs flora and fauna are in very poor shape now compared to 18 years ago. 18 years ago we did not have 45c heatwaves we break records on this every summer. The graph was not in response to anyone it was a standalone statement and purported to speaj for others while leaving out the consensus response of explanation which you still also fail to adress. Ocean heatsink and rising temp Therein.

I'm thinking this horse is about beaten to death, but I'll give it one more shot of adrenaline.

I am interested in the truth, not in what a bunch of government paid  liars want me to believe. 

These government lies, at the behest of the international bankers, as an excuse to implement their global governance schemes, by pretending CO2 (a trace gas essential to all life on Earth) is a dangerous pollutant.  We are in fact carbon based life forms and both our blood and breath would be dangerous pollutants if you believe the so called government consensus bull.

The graph was not in response to anyone it was a standalone statement

See Reply #3 by AG:

For the last three years or so you have been pushing unscientific, pro-fossil fuel propaganda like "sunspots, not fossil fuel burning, causes global warming", "the alleged "pause" in global warming (That HAS been proven a hoax generated by pro-fossil fuel propaganda), the "new ice age" (see Snowleopard wanting to move "south" and making plans to "ice skate on the Potomac" LOL!), ETC. 

BTW The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, UK MET Office, Jim Hansen and many other prominent warmists have all conceded "The Pause" is real.  Those avoiding this reality are either in denial or it interferes with their agenda (like O'Bomber)

The african savannahs flora and fauna are in very poor shape now compared to 18 years ago

Probably true.    Savannahs are a balancing act between grassland and forest, when that balance tips one way or another those fauna and flora specifically adapted to the savannah will suffer.

The real questions are which way and why?

Which way is not in much doubt:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_surprising_role_of_co2_in_changes_on_the_african_savanna/2663/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/02/co2-is-greening-the-planet-african-savannahs-getting-a-makeover-to-forests/

If one looks at the Sahel:

http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf

A bigger picture (the why) emerges of CO2 as plant food.

Desert is turning into grassland.  Grassland is turning into savannah, and savannah is transitioning to forest.

There are ways these changes are bad, and there are ways these changes are good, some will suffer in all change;  but overall less desert means more living area.

• Tweet

[g]

Hi Snowleopard, Just wanted you to know that your efforts in trying to have a friendly logical debate on this topic, and keeping your cool under some virulent attacks is most appreciated.

The points you bring up show a person that has obviously spent a great deal of time studying this situation, and are most interesting observations of much merit in my opinion. It's wonderful to have you back posting again.

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Brave Climate Deniers everywhere, please ignore the above silly graph by NASA. 

Within a thousand years or so we are going to get cooler with lots of BRRRR glaciation! Hurry, buy a big oil fired furnace now! Snowleopard, Mking and your great-great-great-great (you get the idea  ) grandchildren will thank you.

First off that graph is just government propaganda.

If you can stand to look at a denier website there is a view at where the same graph was in 2002.  Nice  "adjustments"!

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/the-nasa-temperature-record-is-a-farce/

NO.  For most people it's probably not a good idea to buy a large oil furnace. 

If/when you need/want to add heating capacity, I'd not suggest oil unless you live near the oil patches.  Even then keeping what you have and adding a backup system that can run with your primary if necessary.  It might be more expensive but gives resilience.   Even better if the fuel for that backup system doesn't have a distant origin.

Full disclosure: I use wood cut on my property as primary and propane for backup. (Propane does not decay, so if I don't use it this year it will be good next year etc.)

Yes AG it will probably take 1000 years or a bit longer for significant glaciation to develop.  But the grain belts will move south, shrink and could be out of production due to cold within three decades.  People will be fighting for food (and to stay warm) long before they see new  glaciers.

• Tweet

[Petty Tyrant]

dismissing selectively anything  u dont like as govt propaganda. All supposedly for the sake of taking 30 Years to introduce a new tax they just pretend they do not want All this time because it would cost money to cut pollution. can u tell me why they dont take that long or need such an elaborate ruse to pinch pensions or introduce bailins or rause any other tax to the max?  Why do u consistently ignore the warming in the ocean?

As i said especially  if u dont believe sources u havent seen go to africa. And see the savannah turning back to forest. Scrawny animals and dead trees all over. 15 yrs ago the trees were alive and the animals sleek. Please tell me with this pause when the 3 hottest years on record since records began in 1880 were? Not the last 3 years by any chance.

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

As i said especially  if u dont believe sources u havent seen go to africa. And see the savannah turning back to forest. Scrawny animals and dead trees all over. 15 yrs ago the trees were alive and the animals sleek. Please tell me with this pause when the 3 hottest years on record since records began in 1880 were? Not the last 3 years by any chance.

Yes, it would be wonderful to have the resources needed hire a caretaker for this place and tour Africa to assess these changes first hand. I'm not in that position.

Since the CO2 "alarmists",  the "deniers", and many with no dog in that fight agree that the savannahs are transitioning into forest, and I've read reports from writers in all three categories, I'm willing to accept this change is happening.    Many think increasing CO2 is the driver here.  Others think changes in wind pattern, temps and moisture are at least as important.  Surely those wishing to promote alarm will select the worst views of these changes to promote their agenda, highlighting local drought conditions.  Did you read my link assessing the changes in the Sahel?  Like I said, it seems more like an overall change of climate zones moving north and reducing desert.

dismissing selectively anything  u dont like as govt propaganda. All supposedly for the sake of taking 30 Years to introduce a new tax they just pretend they do not want All this time because it would cost money to cut pollution. can u tell me why they dont take that long or need such an elaborate ruse to pinch pensions or introduce bailins or rause any other tax to the max?  Why do u consistently ignore the warming in the ocean?

I also routinely run into dismissal of facts I point out as "big oil" propaganda.  I used to accept most government scientific data without question.  I've seen too many "adjustments" (all of which reinforce the warmist case) to that data in the last few years to do that any longer.   Nevertheless I did not just dismiss the NASA chart but provided a link that shows its corruption.

It is obvious that global warming/climate change is a TPTB plan based on its origins, support and funding, the details of which would fill a large book.   Like most schemes of TPTB it is intended to work on many levels at once and is only a piece of a larger plan.  The plans that are successful fund those that need help, with the victims (us) being the ultimate payers. 

They do not think in terms of a human lifetime.  The plan for every nation to be subject to a central bank controlled by them began before Napoleon and continues today.

Very briefly the TPTB used their banks to indebt governments by fomenting wars which increased government debt and enriched their war supply corps.  They could arrange the probable "winner" in these wars by controlling the amount of funds available to the loser. This continued while they moved to control the financial sector by establishing central banks.  If one of the parties to an arranged conflict did not have a central bank, it would be easier to install one after it "lost" and needed funds to rebuild. 

 Once they could "print" unlimited  money through central banks they used this to acquire control of the major corporations with focus on insurance, trading, media, energy and "defense".    In parallel they moved to control education and science, for many reasons, but primarily to control "disruptive" innovations that could threaten their dominance.   This results in a propaganda education where a person is taught what to believe instead of critical thinking skills.  In fields where critical thinking is absolutely necessary, students are taught to confine that activity to their specialty.

The global warming/climate change meme plays into two of their ongoing central plans:   Consolidating control of the worldwide energy sector from production through end use, and consolidating government/NWO.  Carbon tax revenues, carbon trading schemes and increased control of individual choices are (desired) gravy.

• Tweet

[Karpatok]

  Bingo. Brilliant analysis. Thank you, Snowleopard. You must do this more often and in even greater detail.  Wow.                                                                  Karpatok

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

Hi Snowleopard, Just wanted you to know that your efforts in trying to have a friendly logical debate on this topic, and keeping your cool under some virulent attacks is most appreciated.

The points you bring up show a person that has obviously spent a great deal of time studying this situation, and are most interesting observations of much merit in my opinion. It's wonderful to have you back posting again.

Hi Golden Oxen,  Thanks for the kind words.

Insult throwing contests were popular in my grade school, but I like to think I've outgrown them, even if I backslide now and then.  An actual discussion OTOH usually provides opportunities for all to learn something in the exchange.

Yes.  Attempting to understand climate involves a great deal of study.  I've a couple more shelves of books and hundreds of links due to that study.   Interesting as it is though, climate study usually has to take a back seat to the daily realities and more urgent studies.

• Tweet

[Eddie]

Very briefly the TPTB used their banks to indebt governments by fomenting wars which increased government debt and enriched their war supply corps.  They could arrange the probable "winner" in these wars by controlling the amount of funds available to the loser. This continued while they moved to control the financial sector by establishing central banks.  If one of the parties to an arranged conflict did not have a central bank, it would be easier to install one after it "lost" and needed funds to rebuild. 

 Once they could "print" unlimited  money through central banks they used this to acquire control of the major corporations with focus on insurance, trading, media, energy and "defense".    In parallel they moved to control education and science, for many reasons, but primarily to control "disruptive" innovations that could threaten their dominance.   This results in a propaganda education where a person is taught what to believe instead of critical thinking skills.  In fields where critical thinking is absolutely necessary, students are taught to confine that activity to their specialty.


I might not agree with you every time, SL, but I'm on the same page with you on this part.

• Tweet

[Petty Tyrant]

Very briefly the TPTB used their banks to indebt governments by fomenting wars which increased government debt and enriched their war supply corps.  They could arrange the probable "winner" in these wars by controlling the amount of funds available to the loser. This continued while they moved to control the financial sector by establishing central banks.  If one of the parties to an arranged conflict did not have a central bank, it would be easier to install one after it "lost" and needed funds to rebuild. 

 Once they could "print" unlimited  money through central banks they used this to acquire control of the major corporations with focus on insurance, trading, media, energy and "defense".    In parallel they moved to control education and science, for many reasons, but primarily to control "disruptive" innovations that could threaten their dominance.   This results in a propaganda education where a person is taught what to believe instead of critical thinking skills.  In fields where critical thinking is absolutely necessary, students are taught to confine that activity to their specialty.


I might not agree with you every time, SL, but I'm on the same page with you on this part.

So am i and he has explained a mechanism working. However he cant say that education and science is controlled and not to be trusted where it suits and say also scientists  have no dog in the fight when it suits also. This is like someone else here who consistently appeals to authority of science in peak oil and says in the next breath that science can not be trusted on climate change.

Why isnt any Other semi arid area than african savannah rereturning to rainforest thanks to extRa carbon dioxide,  instead of desertification increasing?  maybe because in africa elephants  eat and knock down trees. Ivory poachers kill all the elephants and trees increase in their  habitat but nowhere else around the world?

Still no word on waters  warming or when the hottest years on record are?

there is no explanation of how a need to reduce pollution leads to bankers controlling energy production and supply. Every country does its own thing in this regard. We repealed the carbon tax here. We dont have smog like china. China has to cut its suffocating smog so reduces  its pollution. As great as it is for us to breathe out co2 and trees to brearhe it in as u say snowleopard, that doesnt negate the heating from the burning u deny. In the chinese city with all that burning it is really hot but as soon as u get out of the city its a lot cooler.

as for banker funding control, polluters get the subsidies not the renewables. govts are not doing anything near  enough to meet what the scientists  say is necessary. Why not?  Why not dance to the banks tune on this agenda?

Where is the united nations or bank control in that. Tell me why for the wars we have bipartisan  support and adherence to tow the party line and no politician  ever speaks against the cost or the effectiveness or rightness of any military action and the us does not wait for un anymore or any ally wait for it. Accepting that they are in conduit and control  for the biggest bankers because we can see exactly how that works. Yet somehow on this other  climate change control agenda politicians  can get out of line and call it out as a bs or control agenda and resist at every turn With no explanation of how it helps the banks.

if carbon tax revenue which goes to govt not banks was the goal we would not have abolished it after introducing it. We would not have just lowered our emissions targets by making the biggest  polluters exempt. Carbon credits and trading  is just like trying to introducee water credits and trading when the water is running out. Its trying to apply a monetary market solution In a world where market and money is king. It wont work because u cant breathe or drink money.

• Tweet

[knarf]

CLIMATE CHANGE IS UN-LED HOAX TO CREATE ‘NEW WORLD ORDER’ – AUSTRALIAN PM’S ADVISER 

http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-is-un-led-hoax-to-create-new-world-order-australian-pms-adviser/

• Tweet

[Petty Tyrant]

CLIMATE CHANGE IS UN-LED HOAX TO CREATE ‘NEW WORLD ORDER’ – AUSTRALIAN PM’S ADVISER 

http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-is-un-led-hoax-to-create-new-world-order-australian-pms-adviser/

This is the same article that started the thread knarf. The other u posted in the other thread would help. Which shows the science snowleopard can replicate himself to demonstrate the heat trapping proprty of co2.

• Tweet