“The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science”

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: “There is no climate crisis”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to “The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science”

  1. GW Smith says:

    Wal Thornhill said something very profound which I read yesterday on the Thuderbolt Project channel. “If the climate is changing we must take the blame so that a remedy is possible. But that exposes us to exploitation by authority.”

    Could the truth be made more clear? If man is not responsible for “global warming” then future is intolerably frightening. People will flip out if they can’t see a solution.

    So, just like the cavalry, here come the “experts” to save the day, telling us that WE are at fault, therefore WE can fix it! Just follow the “experts” … back to the stone age.

    • arn says:

      Some call this trick problem-reaction-solution.

      TPTB create the problem,wait for your reaction and already gave a solution.
      Usually the solutions are developed before the problems,as the solutions are what centralises power/make them get what they want but people would never ever acceppt without the problem.
      (if you want to create a police state?let tons of muslims in and let them get away with their criminal behaviour-until people cry for police protection).
      Never waste a crisis.(especially those you created)
      Rahm Emmanuel.

      The former chieff of homeland security(chertoff)
      was massivly pushing for naked scanners at airports-
      after he left homeland security he became the boss of a company for-naked skanners.

      The reason they must constantly push for AGW is because AGW is so far away from truth that only permanent propaganda can keep it alive.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey arn! Yes. Representative governments rely on the promise that they will deliver the things that the populace desires. Consequentially, when TPTB have their own personal desires that conflict with those of the populace (as is usually the case) the problem-reaction-solution is commonly used. The process is simple. TPTB look at what they want to do and then ask themselves, “what possible problem could there be that might plausibly require us to do what we want?” When an appropriate problem is discovered, (whether real or imaginary), TPTB start a campaign to convince the populace that such a problem exists. Either they actively promote and create the problem themselves, or they muster enough propaganda to convince people that the imaginary problem actually exists. Once a critical mass of believers is present, TPTB press loudly and endlessly that they have the solution — the very thing that they wanted to do in the first place. Note that their solution does not have to actually be effective, it only has to be plausible and repeated until enough people want it. In many cases it is better if the “solution” is ineffective. That gives TPTB an excuse to “do it longer and harder until it works!”

        I don’t know how long this procedure has been used, but I know that history shows it implemented at least as far back as ancient Rome. My suspicion is that it goes back a LOT farther than that.

  2. Gerald Machnee says:

    Now we are calling a spade a spade.

  3. steve case says:

    I’ve never posted a “Tweet” before. Here’s my first at: @realDonaldTrump

    B I N G O !

    CO2 is NOT
    a Problem

    President Trump just hit a home run!

    • Menicholas says:

      We need all hands on deck.
      Twitter is how to reach massive numbers of people every time we speak.
      Anyone can talk to anyone else on Twitter.
      Pissants can curse out the President of the United States
      And people who know the truth can spread the truth far and wide.
      It takes time to build a group of people who see what you say.
      They are already doing it.
      So must we.

      One problem skeptics have is that the warmista propaganda is already implanted into the minds of so many people.
      Over the years, they have succeeded in crafting messages that struck home with millions of people on an emotional level, a level that is very powerful.
      We have to do the same.
      Sooner or later, one of us will figure out some way to say something that goes viral, and tens of millions of people will see it.
      That is, I suspect, the best chance to sink the warmista ship: Figure out some way to make the lies so transparent, that in a flash of insight people, millions of people, know that they have been lied to, beyond all doubt.
      It may happen by luck, or random chance.
      Or it may be a process, one of learning what resonates.
      CAGW is a huge spiderweb of lies.
      We know it, an we know it is proved.
      Now we just need to get the proof in front of people’s eyeballs in a way that will not be ignored, cannot be ignored.

  4. Mac says:

    And, of course, the unhinged psychotic leftists are assaulting Trump with insults because he quoted someone else, as if he himself said it. Mental cases who are watching their religious cult’s beliefs be challenged, and they have no rational response to anything. So, to remind everyone: never claim in front of a leftist that witches don’t float. They’ll burn you at the stake for heresy.

  5. Ed Itor says:

    I have found the following video to be extremely helpful when dealing the the Pathetic Climate Criers:


    • Menicholas says:

      Wow, that is something!
      Consider, that at the glacial maximum, about 15k years ago, with ice high (and albedo!) and CO2 lower than EVER…it warmed up and melted it all in a blink of an eye!

  6. Robert Austin says:

    Trump, he’s a rascal but you got to love him. On this tweet, the Griffter dropped by at WUWT to Griffsplain how Moore was not actually a founder of Greenpeace despite the evidence of posted archival Greenpeace literature. The cognitive dissonance is strong in that one.

  7. Mddwave says:

    Tony, slightly off topic, but I am hoping you could provide some insight.

    Do you know of any studies where the below ground level temperature is measured?

    As you have clearly presented, it seems odd that people feel confident on all the analysis, corrections, assumptions, etc. to create a global air temperature to nearest 0.01 degree F? when the temperature ranges from -40 to 120 all around the world with limited sample locations.

    Secondarily, the energy content of the atmosphere is insignificant compared to the oceans and landmass. The oceans heat content is significant but difficult to measure with convection interaction.

    With mainly conduction, it seems like below ground temperature
    profile would be a more reliable indicator of long term climate trends. The profile would show the temperature gradient and heat flow.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      Not Tony, but a simple answer to your question. There are many. Google ‘borehole temperatures’ to find them.

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      Actually, I would say that ground temperature is a poorer indicator of climate. Earth is a poor conductor. As solar energy is the source of heating, the energy does not penetrate as deeply as in water.

    • Cynthia says:

      Very new to this idea about bore holes, so my thoughts will probably be worthless, and I’d love to be corrected.
      Anyway —
      I notice that [every bore hole record I found] shows an increasing temperature, until at about 500 meters down, they are about 2-5 degrees warmer.
      One of these sites claims that (because of heat transfer) borehole temperature profiles contain a memory of surface temperature changes in previous centuries.
      I’m not sure I totally buy that past [some TBD] depth.
      Wikipedia claims that “The temperature of the crust increases with depth, reaching values typically in the range from about 200 °C (392 °F) to 400 °C (752 °F) at the boundary with the underlying mantle.”
      So, it seems to me that the underlying temperature is also following heat transfer laws to warm toward the surface.
      And, perhaps that higher temperature at 500 meters is more a function of the underlying temperature than the surface.

  8. Psalmon says:

    Scott Adams meanwhile looks at this and says…”see both sides are lying.”

    What a buffoon. I wish you would stop trying to convince that cartoonist become climate king solomon of anything Tony.

  9. Petit_Barde says:

    Is AGW fake-science ?

    Look at the the diagram in [Kiehl & Trenberth 1997] (I assume that the data of this diagram are correct) or [NASA 2009] which gives roughly the same results :
    – it shows that the atmosphere loses 165 W/m² of heat into space.

    Since there is neither conduction, nor convection in the vacuum, the only way for the atmosphere to lose heat into space is to radiate it and according to atmosphere temperatures – between 170 K and 330 K – this radiation takes place in the infrared spectrum.
    By definition, “greenhouse” gases are the only gases in the atmosphere that absorb (and hence emit) in the infrared region.
    So, without “greenhouse” gases, the atmosphere could not lose any heat into space.

    On the other hand, the diagram shows that the atmosphere absorbs 350 – 324 = 26 W/m² from the thermal radiation emitted by Earth’s surface.

    The net radiative effect of “greenhouse” gases is to allow the atmosphere to lose 165 – 26 = 139 W/m² of heat : hence “greenhouse” gases have a cooling effect on the atmosphere.

    Now suppose that “greenhouse” gases lost their aborption / emission ability in the infrared spectrum :
    – in order to compensate this radiative inbalance (and without taking into account any feedback such as conduction, convection, evaporation, clouds formation that might take place), the Earth’s surface would have to emit 139 more W/m² and this would be possible only by a surface mean temperature increase. Feedbacks would mitigate this temperature increase, but there would be nevertheless and increase.

    The conclusion is that “greenhouse” gases contribute to cool the atmosphere AND the Earth’s surface. This applies to any gas that emits / absorbs in the infrared region.

    In addition :
    1) What actually contributes to the backward radiative flux of 324 W/m² in the diagram ?
    – since “greenhouse” gases emission is isotropic, they emits backward the same amount as they absorb which is 26 W/m²,
    – hence, the main contributors of this backward radiative flux are clouds – 92% – not “greenhouse” gases.
    2) Since CO2 concentration variations follow temperature variations (as Vostok ice cores show), and since it has a cooling effect, we conclude that CO2 induces a negative feedback with respect to temperature variations.

    [Kiehl and Trenberth 1997] : http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
    [NASA 2009] : https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page1.php

    So, is AGW fake-science ? Absolutely YES !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.