Climate change is a hoax
25 responses | 0 likes
Started by mojo - Aug. 17, 2018, 8:13 a.m.

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 1:39 p.m.
Like Reply

Nice picture mojo. I guess that's the proof that human caused climate change is catastrophic.

Let me introduce you to my friend, "Mr. Empirical Data"  sometimes called "Mr. Authentic Science"

Planet is greening up from increasing CO2 below:

globe of Earth from North Pole perspective

Deserts greening up from rising CO2 below:

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 1:46 p.m.
Like Reply

Authentic, objective study on the effects of CO2:

The Positive Externalities 1 of Carbon Dioxide

Pick the name of a plant at the link below and look at how the (hundreds of) studies conducted for that plant show how enriching the CO2 cause it to grow much faster:

From the same site below, over 100 studies from the Medieval Warm Period, most of which show the planet was this warm or warmer 1,000 years ago. It was also this warm 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period and also just over 3,000 years ago, during the Minoan Warm period.

Medieval Warm Period Project:

MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials - CO2 Science
Figure Description: The distribution of Level 2 Studies that allow one to determine whether peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures were warmer than (red), equivalent ...

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 1:49 p.m.
Like Reply

Global drought decreasing not increasing: 

Hottest/Driest decade in the a wide margin, the 1930s(below):

  • Line graph showing values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index for each year from 1895 to 2015.

All Time State Record High and Low Temperatures below:

Was the California drought really unprecedented?Not even close:

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 1:52 p.m.
Like Reply

Violent tornadoes peaked in the 1970's because of global COOLING:

Tropical storm activity has NOT increased as we have been told, even as CO2 soars higher. Graph below of Accumulated Cyclone Energy(not increasing) vs CO2 increasing massively:

Sea levels are NOT accelerating higher. They have been increasing at a rate of around 1 inch/decade over the past century:

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 1:52 p.m.
Like Reply

Increased CO2 makes plants more water efficient and drought tolerant:

Photosynthesis and CO2 Enrichment | Buy the Truth
The benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 on crops are so extensive that a long article or book needs to be written to do justice to the subject and to the results of thousands of research trials.
By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 1:55 p.m.
Like Reply

Current global temperature is 0.19 Deg C vs the 30 year average(not dangerous warming). CO2 is a greenhouse gas warming the planet but the warming has been beneficial to most life so far and less than predicted by models:

UAH Global Temperature Update for August 2018: +0.19 deg. C

 September 1st, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

You decide if +0.19 deg. C vs the 30 year average is catastrophic or even dangerous warming.

Global climate model projections too warm to much too warm. Please, can we adjust them so they match the real world authentic science, not the politics!!!

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 2:01 p.m.
Like Reply

Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather:

"Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells."

Global warming............1922?


A 1922 newspaper article reported that "radical change in climatic conditions" was melting Arctic ice and disrupting wildlife. Fake news?

Nope, real news. 

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 2:08 p.m.
Like Reply

Super Storm Sandy unprecedented in 2012?

Nope, Hurricane Hazel in 1954 did a similar thing and was even stronger......during global cooling and because of a cold weather -NAO pattern..similar to what caused this "Frankenstorm" the name that Sandy got because it happened on Halloween:

Hurricane Hazel
Category 4 major hurricane (SSHWS/NWS)

And 3 major hurricanes hit the East Coast in 3 months in 1954........that was unprecedented! During global cooling.

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 2:18 p.m.
Like Reply


Now that you and my pal, "Mr. Empirical Data/Authentic Science" have become acquainted, he has offered to provide you with more of his free stuff.........provided that your brain is able to open up and receive it  without exploding.

And all this stuff above is possible, despite the planet beneficially warming by 1 deg. C over the past century.

Since the atmosphere can hold around 5% more moisture at that warmer temperature, there has been an increase in flooding rain events...........can't have everything.

The warming has been greatest in the coldest places, at the coldest times of year, so there has been melting of Arctic sea ice.

There has also been a slight increase in heat waves, so global warming is not good during the Summer.........even though the benefits outweigh the negatives by around 10 to 1 for life on this planet...........which has been enjoying the best weather/climate for the past 40 years, since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago.

If we were to take the atmosphere back to its state 150 years ago, drop CO2 from the current 405 parts per million to less than 300ppm and global temps down 1 deg C........... over 1 billion people would starve to death within a few years and food prices would at least triple!

We actually rescued the planet............from dangerously LOW levels of CO2. The optimal level of CO2 for life is actually just above 1,000 ppm........and we will never get there.

Carbon dioxide has long been recognized as a beneficial gas in the science fields..........biology, agronomy.......even climate.

The one field in which its been absurdly targeted as pollution is............politics.

My buddy, Mr. Authentic Science challenges your best friend, "Mr. Politics" to a debate on climate change or any other scientific topic, any time he wants.

No, Mr. Authentic Science does not work for Fox news and is not part of the Trump administration. He is an independent guy..........he greatly despises politics!

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 2:43 p.m.
Like Reply

Mr. Authentic Science has always stated emphatically:

The Law of Photosynthesis:

Sunshine +H20 +Minerals +CO2 = Food(Sugars) +O2

Mr. Politics has jumped in to change the law of photosynthesis with his junk science and  fake news:

Sunshine +H2O +Minerals +Pollution = Dangerous Warming + Catastrophic weather/climate.

By JP - Aug. 17, 2018, 2:47 p.m.
Like Reply

Aww. com'on Metmike -- it's patently clear that you're nothing but a hateful hater filled with hateful hatred!

If you weren't, you'd join with mojo and his ilk in their quixotic quest to deny reality. 

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 3:02 p.m.
Like Reply

Funny, JP,

As you know, I welcome all views here with open arms...............especially those that I might disagree with.

Most of the time, I just let you guys battle it out on politics.  However, on science, especially climate science that was hijacked for a political agenda, I love being part of the discussion.

By mcfarmer - Aug. 17, 2018, 3:06 p.m.
Like Reply

Metmike. I appreciate your evidence and your views.

But, serious question.

What is to be gained by so many scientists falsely crying about the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions ? Who gains ? Follow the money as they say, where does it lead ?

Now, the money on the fossil fuel side is plain to see. And, green energy has its own money. But what of the scientists ? Where is the money for crying wolf ?

Now I would guess the majority of folks do not have the ability to review original source papers, they must trust someone to be an intermediary. Bias then enters their ability to form an opinion and we all know there are a certain few whom would hold tight to their beliefs until the last dog died, ignoring any evidence contrary to their thinking. I guess I fall in the camp of “what if I’m wrong ?”

What happens if we follow one path or another and we are wrong ? We all know fossil fuels are finite, don’t we ? What do you have to do when you are relying  on a finite resource ? 

Surely it can’t be a black-ball situation where researchers are afraid of going against the current thinking that is in vogue ? What is the motivation for even retired public researchers to give false warnings ?

Thanks, respectfully, McFarmer.

By mcfarm - Aug. 17, 2018, 3:18 p.m.
Like Reply

heh mojo, net time you lob a slow fat one at metmike remember to beware of the exit velocity. Wow Mike, beautiful data, thanks. Am patiently waiting for some kind of response but doubt it comes

By metmike - Aug. 17, 2018, 7:19 p.m.
Like Reply

Wonderful question mcfarmer. I'm glad you asked. Im taking care of my 93 year old dad in the pm hours this week and next at his dependent care facility and on the iPad for a second. I'll explain what's going on there either late tonight or tomorrow.

You should know that the 97% of climate scientists agree number actually includes atmospheric scientist metmike.

How can that be??

I'll fill you in first chance I get.

By mcfarmer - Aug. 17, 2018, 8:05 p.m.
Like Reply

No problem, I’ve been there.

By cfdr - Aug. 17, 2018, 8:27 p.m.
Like Reply

mojo must be too busy to answer you now, mike.


By mojo - Aug. 18, 2018, 10:07 a.m.
Like Reply

LOL I figured that cartoon might set you off & into a posting frenzy. Truth be told, I don't really give a damn about  global warming. By the time global warming gets to the point where it has adverse effects on human life, I'll be long dead. It wouldn't do me a bit of good to get worked up about global warming because there's nothing I can do about it anyway. I only posted that because I thought it was a cool cartoon. No offense or challenge was intended.


By mcfarm - Aug. 18, 2018, 11:04 a.m.
Like Reply

as I wondered thru the history of your posts mojo to allege you meant no challenge is hard to believe. Furthermore if you are a true lib you must believe the hysteria of global warming or you would burnt at the cross. So which is it? Either you are a true believer or not? Remember "the debate is over" "no more debate" no less than Obama himself

By JP - Aug. 18, 2018, 11:31 a.m.
Like Reply

On the one hand, Mojo "only posted" what he "thought it was a cool cartoon." But on the other hand, Mojo posted it because he "figured that cartoon might set you" (metmike) "off & into a posting frenzy." Take your pick.

But then again, on the gripping hand, we are assured that "no offense or challenge was intended." Let me get back to you on that, after I buy this really cool bridge someone just offered me at rock bottom prices.

It reminds me of someone who used to have posting privileges here and who famously enjoyed "yanking people's chains" and "rattling their cages."

Yuk, yuk, yuk -- what a card. 

By metmike - Aug. 18, 2018, 11:51 a.m.
Like Reply

Don't be hard on mojo. He did me a massive favor.

I truly, truly love it when opportunities present themselves for me to share the authentic science which I have studied for 2 decades.................because all that empirical data(and there is much more) gets almost no coverage by the media. 

Imagine the headlines for the past several years "Increasing CO2 greening up the planet!" Or, "Increasing CO2 causing record world food production!"

Instead we hear that every drought, every big hurricane, every heat wave and every major wildfire was caused by or made worse because of climate change...even record cold is caused by global warming according to one side...........seriously! Even a brainwashed follower of climate change religion has to step back and think about that one. 

Here was Obama's climate change czar with his damage control video during our extremely cold Winter in 2014:

“A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues,” Holdren asserts. Watch it:"

This is a good example, that  will lead into my explanation to mcfarmer about why we are being bombarded with junk climate science.

By metmike - Aug. 18, 2018, 12:11 p.m.
Like Reply


There are numerous reasons for why/how climate science has been hijacted and turned into science snake oil being sold for a political agenda, ratings and especially that other green it makes...........moola.

I won't be able to finish in the brief time that I have right now but must state that I'm an environmentalist, who believes strongly in conservation of natural resources and taking measures to clean up real pollution. 

Also, that the physics of CO2 are pretty clear that its a greenhouse gas and is warming the planet by X amount(my guess is that 50% of the 1 deg. C warming has been from the increase in CO2). Nobody can know for sure because its impossible to separate the CO2 warming from the natural warming(which we still don't understand).

However, one side has decided that ALL warming and much of the bad weather is the result of humans emitting CO2. Interestingly, as an operational meteorologist that has been spending most of the day for the past 36 years analyzing global weather, I can say with confidence that the past 40 years have featured the best weather and climate for growing crops and most life on this planet(including humans) in at least the past 1,000 years.

Just knowing that fact and comparing it to what you've been told, should make you very skeptical of the sources and what you've been told.........because the mainstream narrative has got it wrong. Not just a little wrong but as in completely the opposite of right in many cases. This includes what you've been told about the science AND the scientists. 

The warming IS causing heavier rains, melting of Arctic sea ice(probably worse wildfires because there is more fuel from CO2 increasing plant growth) and potentially, slightly stronger hurricanes/ I am not what some want to describe me as a "denier" of science or anti science..........just the opposite.

What I deny, is the skill of global climate models to project the weather/climate for the next 100 years,  based on a speculative theory that is NOT verifying. My case is simply that we should give greatest weight to observations of what is and has been happening in the real world for the past 40 years vs believing computer simulations that have all been too warm to much too warm. 

All I would ask is that the modelers and "some" climate scientists do the right thing. Stop waiting for the real world to catch up to their religious belief from 25 years ago,  which is getting farther away........and adjust the mathematical equations in the models so they represent the real world better. 

Then, the world governments and media would have to stop using these busted projections to fuel a movement being fraudulently sold as "Save the Planet" in order to generate gains that have nothing to do with saving the planet. Ironically, the best thing that has happened to the planet in the last century, by a wide margin,  has been the increase in CO2.

To call CO2, a very beneficial gas.....  Carbon pollution would be akin to calling H2O..........Hydrogen pollution.  H2O is responsible for over 90% of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere and, like CO2 contributes greatly to all life. 

Carbon, the solid in the form of particulate matter is pollution but that has nothing to do with CO2, which is something completely different. 

Now the first point of my explanation.

1.  Almost nobody...... 99.999% of people understand climate enough to do their own research to yield an independent, expert view on climate change/global warming. This means everybody must trust the gatekeepers that release that information. 

I will explain to you how the entire system got extraordinary corrupted and allowed the gatekeepers to hijack climate science and those in strong positions to reap gains based on how the system was set up.

By metmike - Aug. 18, 2018, 12:48 p.m.
Like Reply

Initially, the United Nations created the IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in the late 1980's. It was determined that this entity would be the worlds authority on human caused climate change and all governments and its scientists would follow their reports as their "climate bible" for what has turned into religious type beliefs about some of the information.

The majority of climate scientists work for governments. The vast majority of funding for studies comes from governments and governments don't fund research to study a non problem.............human caused climate change is a problem that has generated billions of dollars over the past 2 decades. 

One of the first things that the IPCC did was to erase the Medieval Warm Period from climate history.......because it showed temperatures warmer than this without humans causing it. Several corrupt climate scientists, especially Michael Mann and his tree ring study which led to the "hockey stick" graph played key roles. 

Seriously, they were deemed the world's climate authority. Despite over 100 studies that contradicted this result(see my source above) they did it and everybody excepted it..........ok, the governments and many of their climate scientists and those who wanted the best opportunities for funding accepted it. 

Now, we had a new climate history graph that showed the current warming was unprecedented. 

Ministry Of Truth – Erasing The Medieval Warm Period.

How To Tell Who's Lying To You:  Climate Science Edition

Gotta go, much more tomorrow

By mcfarmer - Aug. 18, 2018, 1:03 p.m.
Like Reply

See, that is helpful. I think I can say we are in much more agreement than not. And, I will acknowledge your expertise on the subject and say you are more probably more likely to be right than I on the rest.

I may have mentioned  some time ago that our son is a researcher at a Midwest  land grant university in the area of grazing and fire interaction. His research involves CO2 growth chambers and how  various native and invasive forage species produce under differing CO2 levels and what effects that has on rangeland fire.

You might think it would be fairly simple but it is a hugely complex interaction. He is trying to predict species range scientists should be breeding and planting and how they should be managed . How native grasses will respond and how invasive species will respond.

What you have communicated is in line with what little I am able to understand about his findings. As it is with many scientific areas of research his work looks far forward and may not pay off for many years.

That’s my plug for public funded research. No private company would want to be involved with his work, no payoff for them, but very important for the grassland managers  of the area.


By metmike - Aug. 19, 2018, 10 a.m.
Like Reply

Need to leave for Dad's place now(just enough time to do the trading forum weather update) and won't be back until late but will have more.........maybe not until Monday to complete the explanation.