Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."

Defence - Bob Armstrong - Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.

Processing Protocol

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

We will revisit this in one week to see what activity there has been re Statement # 2.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Simple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so...
Agree, Bob A?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-extreme-heat (wait for the video after the ads)

[Fred Harvey]

Simple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so...
Agree, Bob A?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-extreme-heat (wait for the video after the ads)

Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well.....

[Bob Gillanders]

Simple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so...
Agree, Bob A?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-extreme-heat (wait for the video after the ads)

Oh oh, I like simple math, let me jump in here!

taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real.

Dilip, do you want to check my math?

[Sid Belzberg]

Oh oh, I like simple math, let me jump in here!

taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real.

Dilip, do you want to check my math?

I think Dilip's point was as follows

1. Dilip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact, if even 1% had record temperatures once a year (not 30) it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1.
Hence your statement supports the notion that climate change is real as the UK data shows that climate change is real at a very modest .5 degrees every century hence based on a model of only 1 percent record temps it is easy to catastrophe these events without taking into account that these patterns are repeatable. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO₂-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Update


Challenge # 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - 23/4/29

"Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."


Challenge # 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 - 23/7/22

"Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

Defence # 1 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/20

"Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future."

Defence # 2 - Fred Harvey - Post # 1487 - 23/7/23

"Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well....."

Defence # 3 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1488 - 23/7/23

"...taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real."

Challenge # 2 Supplement - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1489 - 23/7/23

I think Dillip's point was as follows

1. Dillip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact if even 1% had record temperatures it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1
insofar as for practical purposes almost no climate change but enough so that on the same days every year you would see "record Temps".
So statement 1 is not unreasonable based on real-world data.
So even if a small percentage of cities around the world experience record-breaking temp on their hot days, it leads to a significant number of reporting events. For example, in Scotland and the UK alone, there are over 5000 towns. One percent of this (50) allows for a weekly news story of record-breaking temp, whether it is the coldest day of the year or the hottest day of the year.

Bob A (As group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Oh oh, I like simple math, let me jump in here!

taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real.

Dilip, do you want to check my math?

You are on the right track, but you forget that there are 365 days in a year. If you look at only one city, over 120 years, every year would have 3 record breaking days, even if there is no climate change. But if you are looking at records of 10000 cities, 3 record breaking days in each of 10000 cities for any particular calendar date (like the hottest ever July 5, or the hottest ever August 1, or the hottest ever Christmas Day etc), or given the inconsistencies of nature (nothing is uniformly distributed), it could be 30 record breaking days in just 1000 cities....which would also lead to every year of the 120 years having the same number of record breaks; yet CNN will get anxious about it...

[Dilip Panjwani]

I think Dilip's point was as follows

1. Dilip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact, if even 1% had record temperatures once a year (not 30) it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1.
Hence your statement supports the notion that climate change is real as the UK data shows that climate change is real at a very modest .5 degrees every century hence based on a model of only 1 percent record temps it is easy to catastrophe these events without taking into account that these patterns are repeatable. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO₂-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Sorry, Sid, not so...maybe I was not clear enough. It does not have to be the same 1000 cities each year or the same 30 days each year...even cool cities can have 'hottest ever' dates (calendar dates, not the other type of dates which you would consider the hotter the better) in any season, and when CNN cites records, it is generally referring to records for particular dates, I think)... Please see my explanation to Bob G, above.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Update


Challenge # 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - 23/4/29

"Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."


Challenge # 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 - 23/7/22

"Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

Defence # 1 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/20

"Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future."

Defence # 2 - Fred Harvey - Post # 1487 - 23/7/23

"Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well....."

Defence # 3 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1488 - 23/7/23

"...taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real."

Challenge # 2 Supplement - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1489 - 23/7/23

I think Dillip's point was as follows

1. Dillip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact if even 1% had record temperatures it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1
insofar as for practical purposes almost no climate change but enough so that on the same days every year you would see "record Temps".
So statement 1 is not unreasonable based on real-world data.
So even if a small percentage of cities around the world experience record-breaking temp on their hot days, it leads to a significant number of reporting events. For example, in Scotland and the UK alone, there are over 5000 towns. One percent of this (50) allows for a weekly news story of record-breaking temp, whether it is the coldest day of the year or the hottest day of the year.

Bob A (As group Secretary)

Bob A, now that I have further clarified my math in the two posts above, you may want to make the corrections in your post...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well.....

Do you get it after reading my responses to Bob G and Sid?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

It is my intention to try to keep the Challenges and Defences together in one place, for easier discussion, and up-to-date, though I have limited time on the internet, and there may be some delays. But CT'ers should go and jump in to make comments on Statements, Challenges and Defences, whenever. I can collect and organize the few that may have happened since my last "Update" (Or Overview).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Gillanders]

You are on the right track, but you forget that there are 365 days in a year. If you look at only one city, over 120 years, every year would have 3 record breaking days, even if there is no climate change. But if you are looking at records of 10000 cities, 3 record breaking days in each of 10000 cities for any particular calendar date (like the hottest ever July 5, or the hottest ever August 1, or the hottest ever Christmas Day etc), or given the inconsistencies of nature (nothing is uniformly distributed), it could be 30 record breaking days in just 1000 cities....which would also lead to every year of the 120 years having the same number of record breaks; yet CNN will get anxious about it...

Oh, no no no no, you promised simple math, so keep it simple.

Just take it one day at a time, that way my argument holds.
Given 10,000 cities and 120 years of historical data, if more than 100 cities have new daily highest temperature, then that confirms climate change is real.

Keep it simple.

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Update


Challenge # 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - 23/4/29

"Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."


Defence 1 (To Challenge # 1) - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/20

"Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future."

Challenge # 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 - 23/7/22

"Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

Re Challenge # 2

Defence 2 - Fred Harvey - Post # 1487 - 23/7/23

"Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well....."

Defence 3 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1488 - 23/7/23

"...taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real."

Challenge Supplement 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1489 - 23/7/23

I think Dillip's point was as follows

1. Dillip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact if even 1% had record temperatures it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1
insofar as for practical purposes almost no climate change but enough so that on the same days every year you would see "record Temps".
So statement 1 is not unreasonable based on real-world data.
So even if a small percentage of cities around the world experience record-breaking temp on their hot days, it leads to a significant number of reporting events. For example, in Scotland and the UK alone, there are over 5000 towns. One percent of this (50) allows for a weekly news story of record-breaking temp, whether it is the coldest day of the year or the hottest day of the year.

Challenge Supplement 2 - Dilip Panjwani- Post# 1491- 23/7/23 (Re Defence 3)

You are on the right track [Bob G], but you forget that there are 365 days in a year. If you look at only one city, over 120 years, every year would have 3 record breaking days, even if there is no climate change. But if you are looking at records of 10000 cities, 3 record breaking days in each of 10000 cities for any particular calendar date (like the hottest ever July 5, or the hottest ever August 1, or the hottest ever Christmas Day etc), or given the inconsistencies of nature (nothing is uniformly distributed), it could be 30 record breaking days in just 1000 cities....which would also lead to every year of the 120 years having the same number of record breaks; yet CNN will get anxious about it...

Challenge Supplement 3 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1492 - 23/7/23 (Re Challenge Supplement 1)

Sorry, Sid, not so...maybe I was not clear enough. It does not have to be the same 1000 cities each year or the same 30 days each year...even cool cities can have 'hottest ever' dates (calendar dates, not the other type of dates which you would consider the hotter the better) in any season, and when CNN cites records, it is generally referring to records for particular dates, I think)... Please see my explanation to Bob G, above.

Invitation

This CT'er Group is invited to weigh in at any point, even if you have not previously participated, and support the Statement, support any of the Challenges or Defences, or just comment, either your own, or on someone else's above. I will do my best to integrate them in (It will help if you refer to the number of the Challenge, Defence, etc.


Bob A (As group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Oh, no no no no, you promised simple math, so keep it simple.

Just take it one day at a time, that way my argument holds.
Given 10,000 cities and 120 years of historical data, if more than 100 cities have new daily highest temperature, then that confirms climate change is real.

Keep it simple.

Don't be so simple as not to understand variability... by your logic, if less than 100 cities have a new daily high on a particular day, the earth would be cooling!

[Sid Belzberg]

Some interesting perspectives by author and science educator Lynne Balzer


The Global Warming “crisis” was once a global cooling “crisis”! In the 1960s, the weather started cooling off from the
decades of warming that caused the 1930s dust bowl. But while the earth was cooling, the percentage of CO2 was rising at the same time. Carbon dioxide and overpopulation were blamed.



This Time Magazine cover is the tip of the iceberg. There were hundreds of articles and books predicting an ice age by the turn of the century. But when temperatures began to rise again in the 1980s, the climate fear mongers told us that the carbon dioxide we were emitting was causing the earth to warm up! In the same year Meryl Streep hosted a PBS documentary entitled, “Race to Save the Planet”. It predicted that by the year 2000 the world’s average temperature would be four degrees warmer. None of this happened.

2) It is impossible to disprove the global warming hypothesis. The following have been blamed on climate change: more heat waves but also more cold spells, more droughts but also more floods, less snow but also more snow, more mental illness and suicides, more alcoholism, more crime, more bugs, rats and bats, the civil war in Syria, more earthquakes and tsunamis. Whatever happens with the weather is blamed on climate change.



A recent CNN report claimed that global warming doesn’t always mean warming. “The term ’global warming’ confuses people, because it triggers thoughts about warmth, and it sort of lends itself to misinterpretation when it also impacts the cold,” declared Mike Hulme of the University of Cambridge.

A well known rule of science states, “if a theory can’t be disproved, it isn’t science.”

3) “Climategate”: in 2009 and 2011 thousands of emails between prominent American and British scientists pushing this hypothesis were leaked. One email reads, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years [the 1980s onward].” This referred to a graph constructed by Michael Mann of Penn State University which grossly exaggerated the threat they claimed existed.



The statistical methods Mann had used to create the uptick on the right side — which to some resembled a hockey stick — were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by Steve McIntyre, a Canadian statistician. This graph incorrectly showed that global temperatures had suddenly risen to their highest level in recorded history.

This icon of the Global Warming movement eliminated the Medieval Warm Period (1000 years ago) and the Little Ice Age (from the 1500s to the 1700s) from climate history. Their emails also revealed the shocking and ruthless methods these men
used to silence other scientists whose conclusions differed from theirs.

James Delingpole, a journalist at the UK Daily Telegraph, described this collection of emails as “conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possible illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.” To deflect the blame from these
corrupt scientists, several media outlets blamed the Russians for hacking the emails.

This revelation should have ended the climate-alarmist fiasco. But because the media covered up the affair, most people have no idea that this important information ever surfaced!

4) TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent on grants for alarmist scientists, trips for elites in their private jets to climate conferences, huge subsidies (paid by taxpayers) for EVs and solar panel and wind farms that take up huge land areas and are
literally destroying wildlife and the environment. Well-placed individuals reaping the cash rewards of this deception – wind
farms and carbon trading – have made fortunes. The main spokesman, Al Gore, increased his net worth from $1.7 million to $330 million from his investments in “green” energy. His documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, claimed that melting in West
Antarctica or Greenland would cause a twenty-foot sea level increase in the near future. Actually the sea level is increasing by about 1 millimeter per year, the thickness of your fingernail, or seven inches per century. This is verified by NOAA.

Between 2005 and 2017 no major hurricanes hit the coast of the United States, setting a record for the longest period of time with no category-3 or greater hurricanes. For decades scientists have been handsomely paid with government grants to push the human-generated climate crisis narrative. If they say there’s no problem, their grants will be discontinued and they’ll be out of a job.



Figure 3: “An Inconvenient Truth”

5) Most scientists do not believe there is a climate crisis. Recently a Nobel prize winning physicist, John Clouser, declared, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

Another prominent scientist, Hal Lewis, called it “the greatest and most successful fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” In the 2007 Global Warming Petition project 31,487 scientists declared, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Some scientists, fearful of losing their jobs, waited till they retired to speak out.

6) Carbon dioxide is NOT the main “greenhouse gas”. It comprises only about four hundredths of a percent (0.0415%) of the atmosphere. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, is 70-100 times more powerful in holding atmospheric heat. Yet, in a Google search for pie graphs showing this, 99.9% show incorrect graphs such as this. Can you see what’s wrong with it?



The correct graph should look like the one below:



Figure 4: EPA.gov

7) Blaming methane and nitrous oxide for contributing to climate change is now being used as an excuse to steal farms from their owners and otherwise (under ESG mandates) destroy agriculture. Yet the truth is that the incidence of methane is just TWO parts per million, totally insignificant. This graph shows the small effect of carbon dioxide and the truly minuscule effect of methane and nitrous oxide compared to water vapor.



Vegan alarmists have demonized these gases to force farmers to get rid of their cows, goats and sheep, to be replaced by lab “meat”. Because methane is produced in the growing of rice, policy makers want to forbid farmers from growing this crop that is a staple of half of the world’s people.

The US and the European Union pressured over 100 nations to pledge to reduce the amount of methane and nitrous oxide in their countries a whopping 30% by the year 2030. If these nations actually go through with their promise, millions of people could starve. This is already happening in Sri Lanka, Ghana and South Africa.

8) The earth is noticeably greener – evidenced in satellite photos – as a result of the slight increase in carbon dioxide. Because CO2 is vital for photosynthesis, which keeps us alive, the small increase in this trace gas has been a boon to agricultural production.



Plants grow faster, absorbing more CO2 in the process. These are well-documented FACTS – not theories or predictions – which prove that the “climate emergency” is a total scam promoted for the sake of money and power by those currently governing our world.

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Update


Challenge 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - 23/4/29

"Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."


Defence 1 (To Challenge 1) - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/20

"Sid's facts "support" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time". Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future."

Challenge 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 - 23/7/22

"Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

Re Challenge 2

Defence 4 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1500 - 23/7/24

First - Statement 2 makes no claim about "record-breaking" heat, only rising air/atmosphere heat.

Second - Challenge 2 is the problem of not seeing the forest for the trees. We can argue, and maybe we should, over the issue of why cities around the globe in some cases face increasing heat while others do not, if that is truly the case. But the issue is the rise of EARTH's temperature, the overview perspective.

Lastly, it is well established, despite the "cities argument", that the air/atmosphere of Earth has been in a warming cycle (with some cooling periods) since the dawn of temperature recording. I will take this fact as established, for the time being, by the Post # 1296 (23/4/29) by Sid Belzberg, who argues that the Earth is in a "natural warming cycle":

"Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."

I add to this my Defence 1 above on the same point.

Re the Cities Argument

It may be that there is something of interest here. If the Earth is in a warming phase, one would expect all cities to be consistently breaking heat records. Dilip claims that the evidence is contrary (And it seems he is supported to some degree by Sid Belzberg, though Dilip did not accept his Challenge 2 Supplement). Why is this, since it is definitely relevant to "global warming". I'd like those interested in this factor to consider if they can come up with some "commonly accepted" Statement on this, using the Challenge 2 and the various Defences posted above.

Challenge Processing Period

Since the Statement # 2 has led to vigorous posting, the one week processing period will now not start until today (23/7/24)..........we must bring arguments on Statements to conclusion in a reasonable time.....we cannot go on interminably on them. So if any CT'er has anything more to add, please do so in the next week.

Bob A (As Participant, and, as Group Secretary re "processing")

---