Jump to content



Photo

BIGGEST SCIENCE SCANDAL EVER: 'GLOBAL WARMING'


  • Please log in to reply
490 replies to this topic

#481 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,902 posts

Posted 11 September 2023 - 07:38 PM

How to park an environmentally friendly EV:

Burning-ev.jpg

 

https://youtube.com/...tjA4l5yOr414x28


Edited by Rogerdodger, 11 September 2023 - 07:42 PM.


#482 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 13 September 2023 - 11:41 AM

Another nail (more like a spike through the heart) in the AGW hypothesis (CO2 is the major forcing for temperature/climate change) coffin.

 

 

Excerpts:

 

Abstract 
In the last decade fundamental theoretical equations were developed for describing and understanding the global average radiative equilibrium state of the Earth-atmosphere system. It is shown that using the well-established laws of radiation physics the key climate parameters of the planet can be deduced theoretically, from purely astrophysical considerations and some plausible assumptions on the material composition of the planetary surface and the structure of the atmosphere. It is also shown, that the Earth-atmosphere system is in radiative equilibrium with a theoretical solar constant, and all global mean flux density components satisfy the theoretical expectations. The greenhouse effect predicted by the Arrhenius greenhouse theory is inconsistent with the existence of this radiative equilibrium. Hence, the CO2 greenhouse effect as used in the current global warming hypothesis is impossible. The greenhouse effect itself and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is a politically motivated dangerous artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing. Planet Earth obeys the most fundamental laws of radiation physics. 
 
Conclusions 
In this article all the arguments are focused on the theoretical and observational issues of the greenhouse effect and not on the question whether the global surface temperature is changing or not. The most valuable result of this research is the theoretical foundation of the observed radiative structure of the Earth’s atmosphere. A long line of new radiation laws and their empirical validation together constitute the backbone of the physics of the greenhouse effect. Our planet enjoys the stable climate because the hydrological cycle forces the climate system to maintain the chaotic upper tropospheric humidity and wind field, the equilibrium cloud cover and precipitation, and moves the latent heat among the different geological reservoirs ‒ as required by the planetary energetics. ... The greenhouse effect predicted by the Arrhenius greenhouse theory is inconsistent with the existence of the CRE [Chandrasekhar-type radiative equilibrium]. Hence, the CO2 greenhouse effect as used in the current global warming hypothesis is impossible. Let us emphasize the overall conclusion: 
 
The Arrhenius type greenhouse effect of the CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs is an incorrect hypothesis and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is also an artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing. 
 

Edited by colion, 13 September 2023 - 11:41 AM.


#483 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 15 September 2023 - 03:44 PM

After a hard day of distilling whiskey, Scots enjoy sitting back with some single malt and cogitate about fluffy clouds and such.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/bRwNqKkbbPfo/



#484 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 18 September 2023 - 03:17 PM

Another nail in the bogus AGW hypothesis that CO2 is the major forcing for temperature.  Recent NOAA satellite data and Mauna Loa CO2 show ZERO correlation (r^2 = .00007). So why the hysteria in DC and blue states?

 

GagJAnrh.jpg



#485 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 18 September 2023 - 03:36 PM

Sound the All Clear.  Climate hysteria is a hoax.

 

 

Meteorologists, Scientists Explain Why There Is ‘No Climate Emergency’

 
 
Special Report
Flawed modeling and overblown rhetoric drowning out scientific reality for the sake of money and power, climate experts say
 
 

Edited by colion, 18 September 2023 - 03:37 PM.


#486 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 24 September 2023 - 03:31 PM

Treasury is ramping up the Biden administration's push for Net-Zero. The anti-Net-Zero crowd needs a Mulvaney Bud Light moment.

 

Treasury Releases Principles for Net-Zero Financing & Investment, Applauds $340 Million Philanthropic Commitment and Other Pledges

 

Summary of the Principles for Net-Zero Financing & Investment

 

PRINCIPLE 1: A financial institution’s net-zero commitment (commitment) is a declaration of intent to work toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Treasury recommends that commitments be in line with limiting the increase in the global average temperature to 1.5°C. To be credible, this declaration should be accompanied or followed by the development and execution of a net-zero transition plan.

PRINCIPLE 2: Financial institutions should consider transition finance, managed phaseout, and climate solutions practices when deciding how to realize their commitments.

PRINCIPLE 3: Financial institutions should establish credible metrics and targets and endeavor, over time, for all relevant financing, investment, and advisory services to have associated metrics and targets.

PRINCIPLE 4: Financial institutions should assess client and portfolio company alignment to their (i.e., financial institutions’) targets and to limiting the increase in the global average temperature to 1.5°C.

PRINCIPLE 5: Financial institutions should align engagement practices — with clients, portfolio companies, and other stakeholders — to their commitments.

PRINCIPLE 6: Financial institutions should develop and execute an implementation strategy that integrates the goals of their commitments into relevant aspects of their businesses and operating procedures.

PRINCIPLE 7: Financial institutions should establish robust governance processes to provide oversight of the implementation of their commitments.

 

PRINCIPLE 8: Financial institutions should, in the context of activities associated with their net-zero transition plans, account for environmental justice and environmental impacts, where applicable.

PRINCIPLE 9: Financial institutions should be transparent about their commitments
and progress towards them.

https://home.treasur...releases/jy1744

 

**************************************************************************

 

Remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen in New York, New York on Treasury’s Principles for Net-Zero Financing & Investment

... Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury published the Principles for Net-Zero Financing & Investment (the Principles). The voluntary Principles highlight emerging best practices for private sector financial institutions that have made net-zero commitments and promote consistency and credibility in approaches to implementing them. ...

Accompanying the release of the Principles are a number of announcements from civil society including a $340 million commitment by leading philanthropic organizations to support the continued development of research, data availability, and technical resources intended to help financial institutions develop and execute robust, voluntary net-zero commitments. ...

Researchers have estimated that there are over $3 trillion in global investment opportunities associated with the transition to net zero each year between now and 2050. In the U.S., this means hundreds of billions in investment opportunities to enhance power generation and the electrical grid, retrofit buildings, and make advancements in agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation. ...

https://home.treasur...releases/jy1750


Edited by colion, 24 September 2023 - 03:33 PM.


#487 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,902 posts

Posted 26 September 2023 - 06:23 PM

Bill Gates???:

“Are we the science people or are we the idiots? Which one do we want to be?”

 

Bill Gates, is pumping the brakes on climate panic!

“Are we the science people or are we the idiots? Which one do we want to be?”
 "It feels as if climate outrage has passed its sell-by date.
People say, ‘I like climate but I don’t want to bear that cost and reduce my standard of living.’”
As Gates noted, many of these people are in middle-income countries, like China and India, that are the biggest contributors to carbon emissions today and whose emissions (unlike those of the United States) have been growing.
He also rained on the greens’ apocalyptic parade, saying “no temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.”
And he cautioned against untested approaches like massive tree planting: “Are we the science people or are we the idiots? Which one do we want to be?”

 

CO2-4-beads-vs-10-000.jpg


Edited by Rogerdodger, 26 September 2023 - 06:35 PM.


#488 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 26 September 2023 - 07:49 PM

Bill Gates???:

“Are we the science people or are we the idiots? Which one do we want to be?”

 

 

 

 

When it comes to Gates don't expect a factual argument for CO2 being the demon.  Follow the money.



#489 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,902 posts

Posted 04 October 2023 - 05:47 PM

Manufactured Climate Consensus Deemed False By Climate Scientist -

'The Time For Debate Has Ended'
 

"The United Nations is leading the charge with this climate consensus"

Top-level scientists have come out to refute these claims. One of them is Dr. John Clauser, a renowned physicist and Nobel Prize winner. He vehemently opposes the notion of a man-made climate crisis. In fact, he believes it's all a deliberate hoax.


Edited by Rogerdodger, 04 October 2023 - 05:48 PM.


#490 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 11 October 2023 - 09:50 PM

Statistics Norway recently found that the effect of anthropogenic CO2 cannot account for systematic temperature changes in the last 200 years.

To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?

Abstract

Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations. Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.

https://t.Co/5yd77LQtf7