Because the fact is that there was never any evidence for climate alarm nor even anthropogenic global warming. There simply never was. At all. Ever.
From a FB comment:
_________________
GLOBAL WARMING – HOW THE LIE GOT STARTED
This is absolutely the best contradiction and history of the global warming scare. It’s a bit long but it explains the whole history of Global warming from its inception in 1957.
I love the comment in this presentation that indicates Al Gore only took 1 science course at Harvard. This course was from the professor that inadvertently started the Global Warming scare (and later denied it) and Gore got a D in the course – it figures.
This video also strongly reinforces the age old adage “FOLLOW THE MONEY”.
Also realize that no one can get federal funds (University Professors or groups) in the United States for climate research UNLESS that person or group agrees with Anthropomorphic Global Warming. The same is true for any research sponsored or paid for by the UN and many non-profit environmental groups. So before you accept any research, check where the funding comes from.
Please click below or cut and paste into your URL to view.
A much longer version is here as well
THE BENEFITS OF CO2 FROM BURNING FOSSIL FUELS
Anyone interested in the impact of an increase in CO2 on earth, should view the 2 videos outlined below.
Once you view these 2 videos you will have a much better understanding of the beneficial impacts of increased CO2 concentration.
The original from 1992
the follow up from 1998
If we double the CO2 content in our atmosphere from the present 300 / 400 ppm, crop yield would increase by about 30% / 50% depending on the crop while tree growth for lumber would be even more impressive.
If we let CO2 drop below 200ppm, plants will start to die for lack of this necessary component.
Crops could grow in the Sahara, and central Australia and the farmers in the mid-west USA would need less water than they use now.
What’s the problem – get out there and burn fossil fuel – forget about windmills and solar panels – they don’t generate any CO2 and plants need it badly. Additionally, the energy required to build, install and de commission a windmill requires more energy than that windmill will create in its lifetime.
In prehistoric times, CO2 levels were at about 1,500 ppm and plant growth was rampant in the times of the dinosaurs. CO2 does not become hazardous to humans until it reaches between 150,000 and 300,000 ppm.
Remember all our coal and oil came from those prehistoric times – the trees and animals died and the carbon from their bodies was trapped underground and reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If we burn more fossil fuels, we will increase plant growth for timber and crops and be able to feed and house the world’s population better.
Obama, Gore, Suzuki and the UN are doing a great disservice to the people of Earth in trying to reduce CO2 output.
_________________
Really though, this meme picture is wrong, because you are NOT entitled to your opinions unsupported by evidence or reason. To hell with entitlement to opinions!
Climate of Sophistry 
Joe – in the text of the FB comment, paragraph 4, delete “Anthropomorphic”. Insert “Anthropogenic”.
Belay that – it’s not your error (whoops, sorry).
Thanks Joe.
There are figures quoted for the atmospheric CO2 content pre Industrial Revolution of 270ppmv but this is an assumption based on the injection of ”extra” CO2 by human use of fossil fuels. thnis assumption may well be totally wrong. We have no idea what the true figures were back then and proxy data from the ice sheets is known to give low figures in error due to CO2 diffusion through the ice. The IPCC assumes that the ”correct” CO2 figure is 285ppmv but this is taken from a paper by Callendar (1948) which tabulated the data from atmospheric CO2 measurements taken in the late 1800’s. He ignored all data above 285ppmv despite there being many readings above and up to 600ppmv. So a biassed paper has been used to reinforce the thinking of a biassed organisation.
The historic average CO2 content over 500Million years is 2500ppmv
I have a thought/question…
If a probe was sent to the moon which planted a thermometer in the actual surface of the moon and the withdrew to a safe distance what do you think would be the readings from the thermometer after averages (a bad concept I know) or medians for a few months. Do you think this exercise would give us any greater understanding. I have no idea but I would be fascinated to know. Obviously I am thinking about comparing to a body with an atmosphere.
Martin.
Another thing,,,
I have been trying to find an answer to another question .. do greenhouses with extra CO2 injected need any different management in terms of the heat in the greenhouse?. It is a very precise commercial art/science, measurements have been taken for years. Not being able to find evidence of adjustments needing to be made in ratio to CO2 levels increased to over 1000ppm in no way is proof that the CO2 in the greenhouses is not affecting the temperature but the detail in the control of modern greenhouses would suggest that when (CO2 is not used all the time) up to 1000ppm is there should (if CO2 causes extra heat) be need for different management. There is no difference in management. The extra CO2 in the greenhouses makes no difference to the temperature of the greenhouse according to all the management practices I can find on commercial greenhouse management. Any greenhouse effect advocates please let me know if large areas of air at 1000+ppm CO2 in the sunlight would not be affected by your theory.
Indeed @ John Marshall…you can’t actually trust any of the numbers they use at all.
@Martin – the averages aren’t that important honestly, and they don’t tell us much physics. Have to look at real time behavior and the partial differential equations that could describe it.
But I do think this was discussed by a Slayer a while ago…oh yah, here it is: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
@Martin 2014/11/15 at 9:25 AM
On the PSI link to the previous post, someone made this comment:
My reply:
In any case, you are correct in that adding CO2 to a greenhouse doesn’t raise its temperature.
Yes, and the reason plants grow better in higher concentrations of CO2 is because because over most of their evolution they have had much higher levels of CO2 than now.
The only downside to burning coal is the sulphur and other crap which causes sulphuric acid rain and pollutant dusts but these have been eliminated for years, we have much cleaner air now that in the industrial revolution, for example. The downside to burning gas is about nothing.
The acidification of the oceans is a term meant to scare people. The ocean is alkaline and carbonic acid is essentially rainwater. The term should be neutralisation of the oceans although it is nothing out of the ordinary.
Joe, I know you already know these things but I just need to say it somewhere.
Martin.
Opinion and liars…
Other people congratulate received knowledge and humiliate those who question it.
You welcome questions which challenge received knowledge and humiliate those who apply received knowledge without reason.
In my opinion.
And I will shut up now honest.
Yah that’s about it Martin. Great observation and I appreciate seeing it that way so succinctly. It’s a pretty big difference in mind, don’t you think?
Dear Martin
I have gotten as far as scrutinizing Joes equations on computation of predicted planet (Earth and others) temperatures. If I put emissivity/albedo terms in the formulae for both solar absorption and emission to space, it appears the the mean surface temperature of a sphere in sunlight in space is only dependent on solar irradiance and shape (the same for all spheres).
As far as I can figure, passive heating/cooling should be completely independent of any property of the sphere at all – mirror reflective or white or matt black – all should give exactly the same answer. I have seen one source on satellite temperature which quoted a black sphere having the same temperature as a dull aluminum one.
Generation of heat within the sphere by liberation of chemical or nuclear energy is expected to make a difference to its temperature.
It would take an extremely simple experiment to prove this, but harder to do on earth. Have to build a solar cooker/cooler one day and see what I can measure temperature-wise.
I watched 18 minutes of the first video more or less. I think I could turn warmist just for fun and destroy the guy.
All that is invalid or at least useless argumentation.
The effective unbeatable argumentation consists of one single point only: the “greenhouse effect” as presented by the IPCC is absurd, physically absolutely impossible. The good thing is that it can be demonstrated easily in the most comprehensible way. It takes just a few minutes. Then the scam is obvious.
Getting to it Greg. Send me your brief version of a write-up and I’ll edit or expand it as/if needed etc.
Joe, I did not mean to push you, sorry.
I do think you can write it much better than I. Or just take my comment about “things” as a starting point. The best way to convey the message should be found in an open discussion where different people make suggestion and give their explanations. I am not particularly talented in that.
Pingback: John Coleman, The Weather Channels grundare, om klimatbluffen - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
quote.
The acidification of the oceans is a term meant to scare people. The ocean is alkaline and carbonic acid is essentially rainwater. The term should be neutralisation of the oceans although it is nothing out of the ordinary.
Martin.
It only took one PHD student to blow Sabines and the IPCC’s claims of acidification clean out of the water, the research data was fabricated, modelled data supplanted in place of the lengthy instrumental records, which show the exact opposte has happened over the last 100yrs.
Just shows the absurdity of throwing billions of dollars at research into Sabines wishful thinking, these people find loads of so called evidence of acidification damage, just shows if you pay them to find something, they will find it, even it doesnt exist.
extract.
The science and engineering website Quest recently posted: “Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, we have been mining and burning coal, oil, and natural gas for energy and transportation. These processes release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It is well established that the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere is a major cause of global warming. However, the increase in CO2 is also causing changes to the chemistry of the ocean. The ocean absorbs some of the excess atmospheric CO2, which causes what scientists call ocean acidification. And ocean acidification could have major impacts on marine life.”
Within the Quest text is a link to a chart by Dr. Richard A. Feely, who is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Feely’s climate-crisis views are widely used to support the narrative.
Feely’s four-page report: “Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy,” offered on the NOAA website, contains a similar chart. This chart, titled “Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2,” begins at 1850. Feely testified before Congress in 2010—using the same data that show a decline in seawater pH (making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
In 2010, Feely received the $100,000 cash prize from the Heinz Family Foundation awards (established by Teresa Heinz, wife of Secretary of State John Kerry). The Heinz award site touts Feely’s work: “Ocean acidity is now considered global warming’s ‘evil twin,’ thanks in large measure to Dr. Feely’s seminal research on the changing ocean chemistry and its impact on marine ecosystems.”
The December edition of the scientific journal Nature Climate Change features commentary titled: “Lessons learned from ocean acidification research.”
However, an inquisitive graduate student presented me with a very different “lesson” on OA research.
Mike Wallace is a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience, who is now working on his Ph.D. in nanogeosciences at the University of New Mexico. In the course of his studies, he uncovered a startling data omission that, he told me, “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.”
Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data—which Feely acknowledged in e-mail communications with Wallace (which I have read). And, as Wallace determined, there are real world data. Feely and his coauthor Dr. Christopher L. Sabine, PMEL Director, omitted 80 years of data, which incorporate more than 2 million records of ocean pH
– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies-are-based-on-phraud/#sthash.XQXdXjvE.mcAuuppQ.dpuf levels.
Feely’s chart, first mentioned, begins in 1988—which is surprising, as instrumental ocean pH data have been measured for more than 100 years — since the invention of diagram-co2_emissions (1)the glass electrode pH (GEPH) meter. As a hydrologist, Wallace was aware of GEPH’s history and found it odd that the Feely/Sabine work omitted it.
– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies-are-based-on-phraud/#sthash.XQXdXjvE.mcAuuppQ.dpuf
http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-climate-change-policies-are-based-on-phraud/
Surely with “ocean acidification” it wouldn’t be difficult to just get a 2L empty Coke bottle, half fill it with ocean water, squeeze the bottle until water comes to the top, place scientist’s mouth over bottle top, exhale into the bottle allowing it to expand to normal size, place top on bottle, shake bottle vigorously, leave bottle in fridge for a week just to be extra thorough, open bottle, test PH level, discover water was still alkeline, then arrest ocean acidification con artists for fraud!!??? Why do con artists need to “study” the PH of a tiny spec of ocean over a decade to make up claims of empirical evidence that 2/3rds of the earth’s surface now has a 0.01 change in PH?