Exposing the Fakery of Global Warming — Billions of People Were Predicted to Die in 2012 from Climate Change (video)
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on January 2, 2012
The liberal doomsday sayers of global warming have been remarkably silent lately, compared to the past previous years. But they are still lurking in the shadows, waiting to spew data-fudged misinformation and AGW fakery, ready to pounce and implement expensive, oppressive, jobs-killing mandates on people for their climate change claims that have never been substantiated by legitimate science.
One of the latest pieces of junk-science nonsense is that global warming is responsible for driving polar bears to cannibalism.
Essay today by S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!:
In discussing the recent release of some 5,000 Climategate e-mails, blogger Anthony Watts uses the clever headline “They are real — and they’re spectacular.” He credits Jerry Seinfeld as the source. Following his example, I choose the headline “Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!” — also taken from a Seinfeld episode — in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy.
Here I am using the word “fake” as an adjective, and not as a verb. I mean to say that the scientific conclusions derived from such temperatures are not real, but I don’t imply that the values themselves have been purposefully altered or adjusted. We simply don’t have any information to support such an accusation.
But I do claim that the commonly reported and accepted warming between 1978 and 2000 is based only on thermometers from land surface stations and is not supported by any other evidence that I could find. Specifically, ocean data (from 71% of the earth’s surface) and global atmospheric data (as recorded by satellites and independent balloon-borne radiosondes) do not show such a warming at all. In addition, most proxy data, from non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, etc., show no warming during this same crucial period. (One has to be careful in this analysis since the year 1998 shows a major warming spike caused by a Super-El Niño. But by 1999 and 2000, temperatures had returned to pre-1998 values.)
Now, I am well aware of the fact that the recent release of the temperature data from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project does show a warming trend from 1978 to 2000. Many would jump to the conclusion that this represents confirmation of the existence of global warming — or even of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). However, that would be an error in logic.
Predictions a few years back that there would be billions of global-warming related deaths across the globe in 2012 — OOPS, that’s now — are now going to have to be frantically readjusted by the AGW zealots, or if they were indeed correct, people will need to prepare to meet their makers.
Doug Powers at The Powers That Be reported this on New Year’s Eve, Not to Cause a Panic or Anything, But Billions of People Could Die Tonight:
Anthony Watts points out at his blog something more terrifying than finding out your New Year’s Eve designated driver is a Kennedy: Billions of people could die tonight.
As evidence, here’s an article from The Canadian that first appeared on January 8, 2007:
Headline from The Canadian in January 2007: 'Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012'
Global warming may go on a last minute rampage. Maybe best to just stay at home and lock your doors, bar your windows, and turn your air conditioner on. If you live near the coast, head for high ground. Deaths due to drinking and driving will be nothing compared to this.
On another post at Watts Up With That?, Watts has provided a number of links about the thousands of incriminating Climategate emails — something you won’t be hearing about from the liberal, AGW-embracing media.
More Reminders: Manatees, an endangered species, were dying at an alarming rate from the extreme cold last winter in Florida. Leftists want to ignore last year’s record snowfall and cold, ignore the findings that proved that natural cycles of global warming were more common 50 million years ago, long before mankind came around with aerosol spray cans, BBQ pits, car emissions, and evil leaf blowers.
From a previous post:
For a head-scratching list of countless links to the myriad things that so-called experts and enviro-quacks have claimed that global warming/climate change/CO2 “causes,” check out Number Watch.
It’s a beefy list at Number Watch — I wrote the following summary just about a year ago, so the “list of hokum” is likely longer now than it was then.
Here’s but a fraction of what’s linked on the site… many sound like the titles of B-rated 1950s sci-fi flicks: acne, coral bleaching, cradle of civilisation threatened, cyclones, killer cornflakes, invasion of alien worms, birds shrink, poppies more potent, Earth spins faster, Earth slowing down, Earth axis tilt, Earth upside down, giant squid migrate, invasion of king crabs, brains shrinking, mountains break up, toxic seaweed, nuclear plants bloom, koalas threatened, tigers eat people, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, polar bears go deaf, jellyfish explosion, invasion of crabgrass, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, snowfall increase, snowfall decrease… you get the picture. This one looks rather intriguing: Tabasco tragedy. It’s in Spanish, so when I have time to fritter, I’m gonna check it out with a translator. If I have time to fritter.
Video encore… as I wrote last year about the loathsome 10:10 Project (Not a Parody: Sicko Climate Change Ad… Children Blown Up by Teacher When They Don’t Agree to Eco-Nuts’ Demands), this kind of sick propaganda is typical of global warming/climate change zealots who will resort to any tactic, no matter how low, to perpetuate their hoax.
Be forewarned — if you missed it the first time, this video is beyond depraved. More hate and violence from the intolerant left. After much outcry, the video was thankfully yanked from television viewing. Leftists are also trying to kill it on YouTube — however, it’s an important video to retain and analyze in that it reveals just how disgusting these eco nutjobs can be.
UK Climate Change Propaganda Ad: 10:10 Project
This was written about the video by James Delinpole at the Telegraph, Eco-fascism jumps the shark: massive, epic fail!:
I predicted this morning that No Pressure – Richard Curtis’s spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign – would prove a disastrous own goal for the green movement.
But what I could never have imagined was how quickly public disgust – even among greenies – would reach such a pitch that the campaigners would be compelled to withdraw it from the internet.
That, at any rate, is what they keep trying to do – cancelling it whenever it appears on You Tube, pulling it from their campaign website and so on.
Unfortunately their efforts are being frustrated by people on the sceptical side of the climate debate, who keep peskily insisting on reposting the video where everyone can view it. And rightly so. With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness.
About the author
I am a student working on a Masters in meteorology and much of my study concerns “global warming.” Whenever I see a reference to the fakery (as you put it), lies, debunking, etc. I try to respond when I can (which is not as often as I wish).
I have only one question for anyone who doubts the impact of human industrialization on the temperature of the worlds oceans — Do you know who, or what company has funded these debunking studies?
“Masters in meteorology”? Not sure how that is even remotely relevant to the hoax of the century of anthropomorphic global warming.
To answer your question, I have no idea. I do know, however, that NASA has confessed more than once to fudging/altering AGW numbers, that independent science (not funded or affiliated with the IPCC) and untainted data have debunked a vast amount of global warming data that was cherry-picked and/or manipulated, that the ice caps have grown and thickened during the period claimed that they are melting, that the polar bear population is FIVE times larger than it was in the 1950s (polar bears were the mascot of endangered species for eco-nuts, and they have proliferated, must to the chagrin of global warming supporters). The doom predicted hasn’t happened, many scientists have proven we are entering a mini ice age, and eco radicals are frantically changing the dates of their predictions.
Most importantly, a major investigation is underway of more than 2,000 Climategate emails that demonstrates sordid efforts to change or hide the real numbers, hide the truth. I’ve posted nearly a hundred news stories, with legitimate science sources, that back my assertions that climate change is NOT affected by humans. Since the AGW zealots claimed that by now billions of people would be DEAD because of AGW and that has obviously been proven a fraud, not even close to a fraction of what was proclaimed, you’re trying to dishonestly change the parameters and new findings that were presented in this post.
The second law of thermodynamics, by itself, debunks the global warming claims of Al Gore’s sheeples. You can’t argue with the simple beauty of physics. As an alleged “masters of meteorology” student, you should have learned that in high school physics class.
Question to you – who or what company (or companies) is/are funding the calculated manipulation of data to support the outrageous fakery?
Another question to you — who or what company (or companies) stand to benefit handsomely from global warming sanctions, penalties, fines, and carbon credits levied against other companies and private citizens?
Excuse me? I asked a simple question and you attack me and doubt my education? Why? I am just curious how debunkers have become so rabid in their attacks on the climate change reality. Some of the examples you cited were just wild speculations, not true science.I did not say I am a masters of meteororology, i stated I am working to get my masters in Meterorology. I am a student at a Midwestern Univesity with a Bachelors of Science in Atomospheric Science who is pursuing an advanced degree.
Although I do not owe you an explanation, climate change has everything to do with meteorology. My thesus concerns the effects of changing air and ocean temperatures on weather far inland; i.e. the increasing tornadic super cell formations in the northern Great Plains. I have just started my serious research and am taking a meterologic history course this semester. Look up La Nina, El Nino, arctic air circulation, melting arctic ice, super cells, jet stream etc. They are all interconnected since the Earth is a closed system.
The laws of thermodynamics only perfectly exist in asmall, closed system with no outside forces or influences.Think of it like this: If you light a fire it will burn rapidly, eventually using up all of it’s fuel until it burns out and cools. However, if you add more fuel it will continue to produce heat until all of the aded fuel is gone. Modern man’s burning of fossil fuels, increased population, increased radiant heat from increased sunlight due to the holes in the ozone levels are just a few of the examples of outside forces which throw off the “law.” More fuel is added to the system. The planet is constantly trying to right itself back into following the law, but so far we humans are winning the fight……thus the rapid increase in the air and ocean temperatures popularly called global warming. Which, by the way is in no way universal nor uniform, explaining why in some places the ice is melting and in others it is increasing……Mother earth trying to right herself back to that line of > equilibrium.. But, overall the earth is warming more than the second law predicts. That “hockey stick graph” is more hokum, by the way. It has been rejected by nearly everyone in recent years. Yes, Al Gore used it…..he did use some junk science, but overall his presentation was pretty accurate, just hyped up and slightly skewed to appeal to the masses.
But you still haven’t answered my question. Do some reaserch into why some powerful forces don’t want climate change. Which is a total impossibility to try to deny something which does exist.
I would like to answer your questions, but I am not sure what you are referring to.
Your question sounded more like a challenge, and since I have many global warming trolls hit this site every week, many of whom claim to be scientists or experts in a given field, but are revealed to not be, you can understand my initial suspicions. I assumed that you were one of them when you brought up your area of study. It’s quite easy to fudge one’s experiences and education in a blog post. My apologies for my assumption.
I’ve addressed the fallacies and junk science of global warming in many posts for several years here, including the infamous “hockey stick” graph. I recommend that you read some of them. The holes in the ozone layer being a cause of AGW has no proof, and some studies show that the holes are much smaller than they were in previous decades, leading to the conclusion that it is a natural and/or cyclic, not manmade, phenomenon. As far as funding on the oceans’ temps or any other area of AGW is concerned, I have no idea which study to which you’re referring and have neither the time nor the inclination to dig into it at this time. Who funded the study that polar bears were becoming extinct? That claim has been debunked. Al Gore won’t address the steady boom in the polar bear population, which he used as a sort of sympathetic, “on death’s door” mascot in his Oscar-winning film to “prove global warming.” His film has been discredited by a court in England for having a minimum of 9 major scientific errors in it, yet many people cite “An Inconvenient Truth” as gospel. Countless studies (I’ve written about a number of them) that were funded with pro-global warming monies have been revealed as having manipulated or cherry-picked the data so that the test data results would be what was desired, not was is actuality.
Many AGW studies are funded with taxpayer dollars, others with private donations, many from groups that have vested interests in the results of the study, although not all are like that, but the funding is often kept under wraps – to research specifically where the money has come from for a specific study, as you want me to do, would take more resources than I have available to me. I’m not a journalist with a budget – I rely upon Internet sources exclusively, so if something is not posted on the Internet, I have few other courses of action to research. I must depart for my “real” job now, but again, apologize for my previous assumption.
Posts that may address some of your questions: Abrupt changes in GHCN station-level temperature records contradict the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claims. Also this one: A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” and this one, On The IPCC’s Undue Confidence In Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Climate Models – A Summary Of Recent Posts.
You also need to research as to why some powerful forces DO want climate change regulations, and it has nothing to do with “saving the planet.”