posted October 03, 2019 06:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
The U.N. doesn't care about real science.

---

The UN doesn't care about much of anything.

UN security forces under the command of Kofi Annon stood idly by while 1,000,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. He was made Secretary General of the United Nations.

posted October 06, 2019 03:45 PM            

We are by no means “climate change deniers.” The climate has always changed, and will continue to change over time due to multiple factors and natural processes. But there is something fishy going on, and the undeniable fact still remains that most mainstream science is plagued with economic and political agendas, and is used to push policy and global elitist agendas.

We must stop destroying our environment, polluting and not taking care of it. The problem is people have made exposing globalist agendas synonymous with denying climate change, and this can’t be further from the truth.

It’s similar to the current vaccine controversy, in the sense that scientists who question the science put out by computer models, which is used to justify various policy decisions, are ridiculed by the mainstream.

It’s claimed that “97 percent of scientists” agree on the current climate change narrative, but there seems to be no hard evidence to back up that statement, and with so many of the world’s top scientists in the field speaking up against “climate alarmism,” sometimes it seems to be the other way around.

Ivar Giaever, a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973, compares current climate science to pseudoscience.

The “97 percent” tagline is often used to demonize those who question anthropogenic induced climate change, and the mainstream media will do their best to make those who question it, no matter their background, credentials, or credibility, look foolish.

Historical Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball On 97% Consensus: “Completely False And Was Deliberately Manufactured”

Hundreds of the world’s most reputable scientists are and have been speaking out about this politicization of climate science for many years, and a similar trend has emerged across the sciences, particularly in medicine. “Peer-reviewed” science was monopolized long ago, and is now plagued with falsities.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. . . . Science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton (source)

These “skeptical scientists,” as they are commonly referred to, are often made to look like complete quacks by mainstream media, all for the purpose of making it seem ridiculous, stupid, and downright outrageous to question the mainstream narrative of climate change.

Read & share: Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax

Dr Richard Lindzen, among many others, refers to this type of narrative as hysteria, and argues that climate scientists raising this issue have been demonized. He’s one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.

He is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability.

His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.

He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, and pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer, and dynamics interact with each other. He is also the Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In many of his lectures, he has pointed out how policymakers were heavily involved with the IPCC and their publications. He is one of many to do so.

You can learn more about him and view his publications and CV here.

http://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c

William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is seen here giving a lecture at the International Conference on Climate Change, a conference that brings together scientists who question the current mainstream narrative. Once the director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, Harper has also done work for DARPA, giving him insider knowledge into this issue.

In the lecture, he covers some facts about climate change that are perceived and have been pushed as true, but simply aren’t.

Anytime a large group/gathering of the world’s top scientists in a certain field is completely ignored by mainstream media, we should be taking notice and asking questions.

However, Environmental Activism Should Still Be Our Priority

You might be thinking, why even make this a debate when species are going extinct at an alarming rate, our forests are being destroyed, and our world polluted? There is no reason the world should not be running on clean energy.

Maurice Newman, the recent chief business advisor to the Australian Prime Minister, says this is one of many areas being used to create the New World Order, an order that takes away countless rights away from human beings, and allows the state to militarize the police and put more restrictions on human freedom and thought. His claims have been backed up by many scientists in the field.

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 percent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. . . . The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.” (source)

Science today is being used to push the globalization agenda, not better our planet. It’s being used to to make the 1 percent even wealthier and to deceive the public.

This is why it’s important to see through this agenda, just as it’s important to see through the lies regarding the “war on terror,” or the ones that plague our medical/food industries. It’s the same thing with mainstream, corporate science and media.

It serves us no good to be complacent. In a time of such deception, sharing this type of information should be a necessary duty for global activists, environmentalists, and Earth preservationists.

If we want to change our world, we cannot look to this “1 percent” to make decisions and political agreements that serve only their own interests. Their intention is not to heal the world, but to dominate it.

While cleaning up our planet and letting go of oil and other practices that harm it is absolutely necessary and vital, climate science is being used as fear propaganda to justify global elite agendas.

The solution is not to ridicule a different narrative, but to have open conversations that consider all of the information available from a neutral perspective. When one side demonizes another, you know something is up.

posted October 08, 2019 05:28 PM            

"His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He's published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics. [i]

"Today's vast panoply of "global warming science" is like an upside down pyramid built on the work of a few score of serious climate modellers. They claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recent global warming and project that warming forward. Every orthodox climate researcher takes such output from the modellers' black boxes as a given."

Dr. Nakamura has just made his work available to the English-speaking world:

"There was no English edition of his book in June and only a few bits were translated and circulated. But Dr Nakamura last week offered via a free Kindle version his own version [sic] in English. It's not a translation but a fresh essay leading back to his original conclusions."

And the critique he offers is comprehensive.

Data integrity

(AT just published the story of Canada's Environment Agency discarding actual historical data and substituting its models of what the data should have been, for instance.)

"Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of "data falsification" by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming "The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public," he writes.

"The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he says. However, "the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting." The reason:

"These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.

"I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process."

Ignoring non-CO2 climate determinants

Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable. As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can't be judged "with the knowledge and technology we currently possess."

Other gross model simplifications include

# Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics

# A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.

# Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks: "Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet."

# Inability to deal with water vapor elements

# Arbitrary "tunings" (fudges) of key parameters that are not understood

Concerning CO2 changes he says,

"I want to point out a simple fact that it is impossible to correctly predict even the sense or direction of a change of a system when the prediction tool lacks and/or grossly distorts important non-linear processes, feedbacks in particular, that are present in the actual system …

"… The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naïve climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics.

"I understand geophysical fluid dynamics just a little, but enough to realize that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.

"Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a "never changing quantity". He says, "It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No."

There is much, much more. Read the whole thing.