Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic

More on the climate hoax conspiracy

Source; https://patriotcommandcenter.org/forum/more-on-the-climate-hoax-con...

Only 9% of the electorate, most of them left-wing/democrats, rated climate change as the top issue, and Trump’s promise to reverse the deeply destructive green new deal and withdraw from the sham paris climate agreement did not hurt his campaign. If anything, it attracted voters who were tired of what they view as a hoax. According to a recent poll by the associated press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 66% of Americans do not believe that climate change is harming them, and it is unlikely that the remaining third believe the ignorant aoc prediction that “the Earth will end” in 2031.

What the electorate seems to understand is that the phony climate “crisis,” with recent claims that many of our coastal states will be underwater in 25 years (not a few beach areas, but “the state”), is driven by massive self-interest. The salary for fred krupp at the environmental defense fund was $825,000 in 2020. Other environmental leaders commanded high six-figure salaries as well. It’s unlikely they would come forward and admit that there is not a crisis. It may be, as Bjorn Lomborg asserts, that some degree of global warming actually is taking place but that the magnitude of the “crisis” has been blown way out of proportion and that government response, such as promoting E.V.s with subsidies and mandates and restricting fossil fuels, is irrational.(1). Or it may be that most of the recent climate change (one degree Celsius over the past 150 years) has resulted from natural cycles. In either case, the climate alarmists are wrong in alarming the public.

What neo-liberals see in climate change is an opportunity to grasp more power. 6.7% of U.S. GDP is derived from energy production and distribution, 84% of that being fossil fuels. That’s 6.7% of a $30-trillion economy, or $2.1 trillion. Over the past 35 years, the global warming narrative has been developed and enlarged with the intention of securing government control of the energy sector of the economy. Proponents of global warming such as alGore (who as of 2023 had a net worth of $330 million) have enriched themselves, seemingly at the expense of ordinary working Americans who must pay higher prices for gasoline, heating, food transportation, automobiles, and other necessities. But alGore is only one in a large cottage industry of lobbyists, non-profit officials, academics, journalists, politicians, and investors who have profited from promoting the idea of climate change. green new deal–supporters are like pigs at the trough, dividing up the estimated $93-trillion total estimated cost of climate abatement. That price tag would amount to $600,000 per household. Do Americans have $600,000 per household to spend on global warming? This is the greatest shell game in history: as one claim of warming is shot down, another even greater claim is manufactured.

The problem, as Lomborg insists, is that climate hysteria distracts attention from hunger, inadequate shelter, lack of medical attention, poor educational standards, and many other legitimate concerns. It is not the role of the federal government to address these problems, but at the local level, many would like to improve the lot of the poor through private charity. Those Salvation Army kettles at Christmastime are a good place to start.

The Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) argues the debate over the causes and consequences of climate change is not settled, in part because the climate models (2) fail to account for problems with the temperature record and the influence of solar activity on climate. Concerning the temperature record, there are 3 principal sources of local temperatures that are averaged and combined to produce “global average temperatures,” surface stations, which include both land-based and ocean-based temperature readings, satellite measurements, and weather balloon measurements. Average readings are determined and communicated. The problem identified by CERES, a problem others have pointed to previously, including repeatedly by Anthony Watts, is that the surface temperature record is beset by persistent the heat bias stemming from surface stations being improperly located. CERES shows that the un intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc) fails to adequately address this and other problems associated with the surface station record, as displayed in contaminated homogenized temperature datasets. CERES’ research suggests that the ipcc’s temperature “data” is as much as 40% warmer than it would be were the bias from the urban heat island effect and flawed homogenization properly accounted for.

Concerning natural factors that impact climate, the ipcc only modeled two natural factors, ignoring a number of others: volcanic activity and solar irradiance (solar activity). Interestingly, despite CERES identifying a minimum of 27 different estimates of long-term solar irradiance since 1850, the ipcc chose to only examine one estimate, 1 that just happened to suggest that the Sun did not play a measurable role in recent climate change. Other estimates show a larger impact on temperatures, both decadal and over longer time scales. The IPCC’s claims that the science is settled and that human activity, not nature, is responsible for all or the vast majority of present climate change was seemingly pre-ordained by the data sets the IPCC chose. This indicates the ipcc knew the outcome it wanted and tailored its premises to produce it.

The point is that in winter, it is cold, and in summer, it is hot, and in a nation as large as the USA, new records will be set somewhere every month. That does not mean that the climate has gone haywire. In hurricane season, there are hurricanes, and there always have been. There are tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, and floods. Even before humans set foot on North America, all of these phenomena existed. Temperatures rose and fell over the millennia. Storm activity increased and declined. Droughts came and went, as they have in California even during the past 20 years. The hysteria that existed for so long surrounding drought in California seems to have diminished, though the state still has in effect what seems to be “permanent regulations” predicated on drought. One can remember wild claims of California “burning up” and “running out of water”: now the problem, at least in some counties, is too much water.

Hopefully, Trump will reverse all of corrupt biden’s misguided environmental policies. Jobs will be created, wealth increased, prices lowered, and Americans allowed the freedom to choose their sources of energy. Unlike global warming, which has had no noticeable effect on 66% of Americans, “Drill, Baby, Drill” will have a direct effect for the better. Prices overall ought to decline, and the energy industry will provide good-paying jobs for hundreds of thousands of persons, many of them young men who are currently underemployed or unemployed. Humans have lived through far worse than a one degree rise in temperatures, and if government will give them a chance, they will live through this one.

1. A study published in the Journal of Sustainable Development, Michael Simpson from the University of Sheffield, points out that the goal of hitting net zero emissions is a political one, that was undemocratically adopted. It is not grounded in science. Simpson’s study goes through the chemistry and physics of greenhouse gasses, arguing that there is no climatic reason for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases to net zero. Even if that goal is politically possible, CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, are saturated in the atmosphere. As a result: “adding to or removing these naturally occurring gases from the atmosphere is unlikely to achieve reductions in average near surface global air temperature, regardless of whether Net Zero is fully implemented and adopted worldwide and will make little difference to the temperature or the climate.”

2. It is widely acknowledged that climate models run too hot and have historically produced false impact projections. The simple fact is scientists don’t understand all the factors that impact temperatures and climate, which becomes more evident with every new journal publication. For example, recent research published in the journal Science Advances quantifies emissions of sulfur gas produced by marine life that cools the climate more than previously believed. The study produced through the collaboration of an international team of 14 scientists from universities and research institutes located in eight countries spanning three continents examined dimethyl sulfide outgassing produced by microscopic plankton living on or near the ocean surface. They found that the sulfur emissions were substantial and contribute to forming aerosol particles that directly reflect sunlight back into the atmosphere and that contribute to cloud formation and brightening, which also reflects sunlight. This dual action has a cooling effect on the Earth’s surface. This is the climatic element with the greatest cooling capacity, but also the least understood. We knew methanethiol was coming out of the ocean, but we had no idea about how much and where. We also did not know it had such an impact on climate. Another example is Research published in the journal Nature indicates that models also fail to account for emissions from rainforests, which also tend to cool the climate. The research by scientists in collaboration with 80 scientists from universities and research institutes in 11 different countries finds that rainforests emit chemicals that form isoprene-oxygenated organic molecules, with said molecules reaching the troposphere. The atmospheric gases were discovered by aircraft observations, and have been confirmed in laboratory simulations, and by global satellite measurements. These particles grow and contribute to cloud cover and rainfall, especially over rainforests, ultimately regulating the regional and global climate. Based on laboratory experiments carried out in the European Organization for Nuclear Research’s (CERN) Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) chamber, the research team determined that isoprene emitted by rainforests drives rapid particle formation in extensive regions of the tropical upper troposphere resulting in tens of thousands of particles per cubic centimeter, and ultimately growth on the right atmospheric conditions. Climate models have greatly overestimated the solar radiation actually reaching the Southern Ocean, largely because they are not capable of correctly simulating clouds. The work done here partially closes the longstanding knowledge gap between models and observations. Aerosol particles are important for climate because they scatter and absorb incoming solar radiation and seed cloud droplets by acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). More CCN make clouds more reflective and may increase their extent and lifetime. Around half of CCN globally, and almost all in the upper troposphere6, arise from new particle formation