Author Topic: Global Warming Scientists: We Were Wrong  (Read 466 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 254,346
Global Warming Scientists: We Were Wrong
« on: September 17, 2013, 07:37:24 PM »

Global Warming Scientists: We Were Wrong
September 17, 2013


RUSH:  I have a bunch of global warming news in the Stack that I did not get to yesterday. It's about the IPCC, the United Nations unit, I guess, that is the repository for the hoax.  You know the University of East Anglia in Britain.  Well, the hoaxers are there, but they reported to the UN, this guy at Penn State with his fake hockey stick graph.  These guys all reported to the IPCC.

All of these models that they constructed over the years predicted calamity by now, and the calamity never happened. I was still living in California 1985, and I'm watching This Week with David Brinkley on Sunday morning, and there's this guy named Oppenheimer, and he's a global warming guy. He's saying, "We've got 20 years!" This is 1985, and he says, "We've got 20 years! I don't know if we're right, we're not sure if we're right, but we can't take the chance!

"If we don't get started now on reducing greenhouse gases," and all that same BS, "then we're not gonna have any chance to stop this."  That was 1985.  So those 20 years ended in 2005.  The bottom line is, there isn't any warming.  Their models have been all wrong.  UK Daily Mail: "A leaked copy of the world's most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong."

This is not news to you.  Because you listen here, you're on the cutting edge.  But it's just added information to put in your back pocket and have on file.  The UK Daily "Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," which is the holding company, if you will, for all the hoax data.

"[T]he final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly 'assessments' are accepted by environmentalist [wackos], politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.   They are cited worldwide to justify [increasing] fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for 'renewable' energy.

"Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment,  published in 2007," despite the fact that there is bunch more CO2 in the atmosphere.  The so-called greenhouse gas has just been expanding by geometric proportions, and yet the temperature increase is negligible.

Back in 2007, the UN "said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade -- a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by [their precious] computer climate models.  But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade -- a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.  The 31-page 'summary for policymakers' is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time.

"It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures -- and not taken enough notice of natural variability." Natural variability!  They didn't account for nature! The left never does, when it projects anything -- taxes, rates of increase or decrease.  Anyway, the hoax continues.


RUSH: Stick with the global warming here for just a second, because, again, you in this audience, because you're here are fully aware of the facts about it, you're fully aware that -- I call it a hoax, and that might be off-putting to some.  The simplest way to explain to people who want to believe it's true -- and you know who they are.  Those are people looking for ways to make themselves matter.  They run around and they hear that they're to blame for the world getting warm, or that the country is, America is to blame, our prosperity, our high standard of living and the fact that we've stolen all these resources from around the world, that we're using more oil than we have any right to, and all of that.

When they're hit with a solution, then they can be big people.  They can do something about it.  Everybody wants to matter.  And that's the sales pitch.  So all you have to do is go out and, you know, buy some new kind of newfangled hybrid car or agree to raise taxes or if you go to the store, buy everything and anything with a green label on it and you are saving the planet.  I understand it's seductive for people who want to believe it.  But it is a hoax in the sense that it's nothing more than another of the never ending issues, political issues by the left, by the Democrat Party, to advance their ultimate agenda of bigger and bigger government and more and more control.

That's all global warming ever was.  For the scientists involved in it, it was a living.  You go out and promote what the leftists wanted to hear, and you got grant money.  And if you run around and really sound like you believe it, then they're gonna make you a star.  And if you're Algore and you realize you can capitalize on your vice presidency, you can become a multimillionaire spreading this hoax, which he has done.  But Algore, 2007 prediction, that summer in the North Pole could be ice free by 2013.  Algore made this prediction.  He cited it in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.

There's another totally fraudulent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.  Gore hadn't done anything but make a movie that itself was filled with misrepresentations about the amount of ice the poor polar bears have to live on, doctored photos.  He said in his acceptance speech in 2007, getting a Nobel Peace Prize, that the North Pole would be ice free by 2013.  If that was the case, New York City would be underwater by this year.  "In his Dec. 10, 2007 'Earth has a fever' speech, Gore referred to a prediction by US climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could 'completely disappear' by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions."

Now, if you haven't heard this, the ice at the North Pole, arctic ice, is at a record amount this early in the post-summer season.  Algore said six years ago there wouldn't be any arctic ice.  Today the truth is, there is a record amount of arctic ice for this time of year.  He couldn't have been more wrong.  Now, let's go back.  Here's a story from the AP: "Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon's inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago."

Now, one of Nixon's favorite people was Daniel Patrick Moynihan.  He's a Democrat, but Nixon liked the guy.  I think he was ambassador to the United Nations for Nixon.  Moynihan told Nixon in an inner circle meeting 30 years ago that we would be underwater by the year 2000 because of the rapidity of global warming and the North Pole and the South Pole ice would melt and flood the coasts of this country.

"There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo. 'This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,' he wrote. 'This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.'"


Thirty years ago, Moynihan, smart guy. George Will thinks he's the smartest guy that ever lived.  George Will loved Moynihan.  Moynihan bought into this.  That's how seductive it is.  Otherwise intelligent people buy into this notion.  Their vanity and everything else makes it possible.  "Oh, yeah, we have the power to destroy the planet. Oh, yeah, we have the power to raise temperatures and melt all the ice, oh, yeah." We don't have any such power.  We couldn't do any of this if we wanted to.  But never mind.  "Moynihan was Nixon's counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 -- when Nixon began his presidency -- to December 1970. He later served as the US ambassador to the United Nations."

So in 1969 -- I was 18 years old -- Moynihan tells Nixon, the temperature is gonna rise 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2000 and bye-bye New York and Washington.  And it's just progressed.  I mean, that's about the beginning of the modern era of the feminist movement as well, by the way.  Coincidence?  Hmm.  There are no coincidences.  I learned that from the Clintons.  So the hoax is out there.  Every one of these proponents is dead wrong about everything they say, and yet people like me and you who object to it, we are called deniers, and we are targeted for some sort of character assassination and attack because what this is is nothing more than a leftist political effort to expand the size and role of government.


RUSH:  Minor, minor, minor -- all caps, MINOR -- correction.  Antarctic sea ice, the ice at the South Pole just reached a record high during their winter.  It is the North Pole ice, Arctic ice, that's increased by 60% compared to last year's melt season.  So it's the South Pole where there's a record amount of ice, and at the North Pole, 60% more ice than last year.  Remember, the North Pole ice was supposed to be melted by now.

That's what Algore said would happen, accepting his Nobel Prize in 2007, if we didn't change anything -- and we haven't.  All we've done is add more CO2, the supposed killer. CO2 is supposedly the primary agent of warming.  We've added it out the wazoo because we can't help it. We exhale it. There's nothing really we can do.  Yet not only the ice not melt, there's 60% more of it!  Now, Moynihan back in 1969 was talking to Nixon about this.

He said air pollution, CO2, was causing the warming.  They were getting ready for global cooling.  A 1975 Newsweek cover was gonna talk about the ice age coming.  So they're really confused how to play it back then.  But Moynihan told Nixon it was air pollution that was causing global warming.  Now we're being told, by the way, air pollution is what stopped global warming, like volcano eruptions.

Yeah, yeah. That's putting so much smog and dirt and junk up there that it's interrupting the warming process, and those brilliant models didn't account for any of this, damn it! And then there's the dust from the Sahara Desert.  That's what's being blamed for no hurricanes.  Well, they're really ticked off about that.  The left is beside themselves that there aren't any hurricanes 'cause that's what they promised.

You know, after Katrina, global warming was supposed to increase every hurricane, you know, by a week. Each one would be deadlier than the one before it, and there haven't been any.  They're just vacant, folks.  They're empty.  They're so devoid of facts to back up any of their claims or contentions.

Let's start in Grafton, Ohio, with Rich.  Glad you called, sir.  Great to have you on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  It's an honor and a pleasure to talk to you.

RUSH:  I appreciate that, sir.  Thank you.

CALLER:  I wanted to talk to you a little bit about models.  I work for NASA, and couple years ago I went to the Goddard Space Flight Center website where you can download the models that they use, and the process of going through 'em, I found out that one of the biggest variables in determining what the temperature is going to be is what the cloud cover is, and we don't have a way of figuring out or even modeling exactly what the cloud cover's gonna be, and it can swing the models one way or the other.

RUSH:  Are you familiar with the name Dr. Roy Spencer?

CALLER:  Yes, I am.

RUSH:  Well, that's one of Dr. Spencer's areas of investigation, has been the role of cloud cover in global warming.

CALLER:  Right.

RUSH: It's impossible. You can't measure it. You can't predict it. It's really impossible.

CALLER:  That's right.

RUSH:  You can't measure cloud cover worldwide. They dissipate and form so quickly, and in all of weather forecasting, predicting cloud cover -- what percentage of the skies be covered by clouds, other than when you have a storm system moving through -- is such a variable, nobody can get a handle on it.  It's as much as we can do to understand how they're formed, and how much it's gonna happen. We're clueless.

CALLER:  That's correct.  It's KS modeling, and you can't do it.  But the other thing I wanted to tell you is when you go to figure out a model, because you can't sample every place on earth, you have to figure out a grid size that you're gonna use, and the size of the grid that's typically used, whole islands like Japan fall through the grid.  So you have to go back. I believe we should study this better, but the reality is, the models just aren't mature enough to make the kind of predictions that people are making.

RUSH:  Yeah, they never have been.  You know what?  School's out, as far as I'm concerned, on how many of these scientists are actually knowingly participating in a hoax and how many of 'em really are true believers on this stuff and think their models are infallible and so forth.  This is the one thing that I don't know, and it'd be impossible to find out, really.

The political movement funds these people with donations if they produce the right outcome in their research.  So that tends to dictate what kind of research you're gonna get in your lifestyle, if your living depends on it.  But there's no question that they have, in this movement, converted a bunch of just everyday, ordinary meteorologists into huge proselytizers for it.

Your average, ordinary everyday local news-weather guy has become one of the biggest proponents -- whatever market you go to -- of global warming.  It's almost required that you buy into this in order to get that little stamp of approval from the AMS.  But the modeling, my problem with this is... I'm not a scientist on any of this stuff, and yet I I've talked to scientists, and they cannot deal with my reasoning on this, 'cause it isn't scientific.

I've talked to many of them about this.  So the left asserts there's global warming, and they assert that there's manmade global warming, and they assert that it's caused by CO2, and they assert that they've got models for it.  I can dispel all of that with my religious beliefs.  I can dispel all of that with common sense.  But they can't rely on that, the scientists who oppose it.

They say they have to come up with other science that contradicts the science that's put forth by "the believers," if you will.  So they've embarked... Some have done great work in doing so, but they are routinely denied permission to testify at government committees, like Senate and House committee hearings on this stuff, and if they are allowed to testify, they're shouted down, and they're not shown much respect, which is just more proof that the fix is in regarding this.

I have never believed the manmade global warming allegation, but I fully understand however the people who do.  All it takes is a 105-degree day in July, and the normal reaction is, "Man, it's getting hotter! I wonder if we're getting hotter?" When I was a kid, everybody wondered, "Are we on getting closer to the sun?"  This is a natural thing.  This is really where the left is really smart.  They have the ability to tap into what people of their own volition are already concerned about, and then they give 'em a reason, and they give 'em substantiation for it.

But the whole thing is a joke. 


RUSH: John in Savannah, Georgia.  Hello, sir.  I appreciate your patience.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I'd like to thank you, first of all, for what you do to put common sense and conservative values out there in front of the indoctrinated masses.

RUSH:  Well, thank you very much.  I appreciate that.

CALLER:  My comment was brought to mind by a previous caller's discussing the issue of global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it these days.  I am a retired aerospace engineer. I've done a lot of work with math models and that sort of thing, and I think one thing that people don't realize when you're building a math model, is generally the work you do is built on the work of others.  In other words, rarely are you building a model from first principles where you go through the physics of the situation. You basically rely on work that is done by previous individuals.

RUSH:  Not only that, aren't you relying on the past to predict the future as well?  I mean, what other kind of data input do you have?

CALLER:  Well, actually the math models themselves predict the future.  However, they should also jibe with the models, data of the past.  In other words, you check your models with past data and then use it to predict future data.  Now, that's a fundamental problem.  As you know, there were scandals in Great Britain where the data was actually fudged because it didn't match up with existing models.

RUSH:  It didn't match the agenda.

CALLER:  Well, yes.  Yes.  I believe it is the agenda.  I think there are basically, as you discussed a little earlier, two different approaches to this.  One is the true believer, and the other is the one who's gotta get his research funding.  That is brought over mass media to the American public, and they swallow it hook, line, and sinker.  But specifically to the comment I was going to make, a great deal of the work on -- and you know the term "runaway heating" or the "greenhouse effect."

Most of that, or I would say all of that, is based on some work that was done on stellar atmospheres in the early 1900s, back when Einstein and other physicists were looking at how stars evolved and grew.  A gentleman (and I don't have his name in front of me) did some work on stellar atmospheres looking at the heat and light transmission through stellar atmospheres.

Now, these stellar atmospheres take a look at things like photons starting from the center of the star and moving out.  It takes tens and hundreds of years for a photon to emerge from the sun from the center.  It bounces around in there and it takes that long.  Now, this fellow was looking at that. He used differential equations, which some of your listeners may be familiar with.

RUSH:  I doubt very many.

CALLER:  Maybe not, but these equations are notoriously hard to solve, and there are many equations that cannot be solved explicitly on paper.

RUSH:  You know, that is exactly right.  So what then is relied upon is the complexity, and, "You must just trust us. We wouldn't lie to you. We are the only ones capable of running these models and putting them together and then analyzing what they say.  It's so complex, just trust us."  But one of the problems here, John, is that scientists refuse to release the data after a whole lot of Freedom of Information Act requests, and the hoax was exposed when the data was leaked from the University of East Anglia.

There had been people asking for the data, the hockey stick data, all of this stuff. They've been asking for it, the stuff in the models you're talking about.  They wouldn't release it.  "Oh, it's too complex.  You wouldn't understand it.  It could easily be distorted.  It takes professionals like us to be able to analyze this and tell people what it really says, and we're the only ones capable of charting it and graphing it and putting it in an understandable format for people to see and absorb."

But then somebody at East Anglia says, "You know what? I'm gonna leak some data that's in these e-mails," and they found out that they were plugging in data, as you say, to fit an outcome that they wanted or predicted or the models they'd predicted.  They were fudging it.  They were fudging it, because they didn't like the result. It's like economic models.

You cannot factor dynamism, or they refuse to, in an economic model. The left, CBO, whatever. A tax cut or tax increase is proposed into law, and they do a static analysis of it because they cannot model dynamism.  They can't, just like they can't model cloud cover.  They can't analyze it, they can't predict it, they can't explain it -- and it's a huge factor.  So ultimately, here, John in Savannah is right on the money.


RUSH:  By the way, our previous caller, John from Savannah, talking about photons and how long it takes them to get anywhere from the middle of the sun -- let me tell you something.  Apple has found a way to capture 'em fast.  The new iPhone 5S has not expanded the mega pixels in the camera.  It's still eight.  But they've opened the aperture to F2.2.  More light's gonna get in. You're gonna be able to capture more photons, so the global warming modelers may have a tough time with their photons, but Apple has it covered.  They've found a way to capture 'em like that (snapping fingers) to even improve on your pictures.  Not a plug, not a plug, just photon news.


Support the USO

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,400
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: Global Warming Scientists: We Were Wrong
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2013, 11:46:28 AM »
Sadly, this will make no difference in the commiecrat agenda for a "carbon credit" tax or shutting down coal mines **nononono*.
Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,168
Re: Global Warming Scientists: We Were Wrong
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2013, 12:10:15 PM »

Those 'the end is near' scenarios have been around a long time.

In the 60's it was 'overpopulation', in the 70's it was 'peak oil', in the 80's it was 'acid rain', in the 90's it was 'the ozone hole', in the 00's it was 'global warming'.  I lead my kids down the list whenever they show signs of believing some of the crap we are consistently fed.

These are nothing more than political scare tactics designed to control the world's power and wealth.

I'm kinda curious as to what the next doomsday scenario will be...

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,967
Re: Global Warming Scientists: We Were Wrong
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2013, 09:36:20 AM »
Those 'the end is near' scenarios have been around a long time.

In the 60's it was 'overpopulation', in the 70's it was 'peak oil', in the 80's it was 'acid rain', in the 90's it was 'the ozone hole', in the 00's it was 'global warming'.  I lead my kids down the list whenever they show signs of believing some of the crap we are consistently fed.

These are nothing more than political scare tactics designed to control the world's power and wealth.

I'm kinda curious as to what the next doomsday scenario will be...

Coming next: Water shortage.

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo