Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Sid Belzberg]

Originally posted by Sid Belzberg
Your claim that searching with a Jewish word (I did not) somehow distorts the information is nothing short of provably absurd. Simply search google for the "origin of the word Klutz" https://www.google.com/search?q=the+...client=gws-wiz One cannot simply sweep away historical roots and etymology because they do not align with your own narrative. To dismiss such linguistic evidence as an attempt to promote racism is an insult to intelligence and reason.

Furthermore, to assert that "klutz" has miraculously shed its ethnic connections to become a "mainstream English word for clumsy" is a disingenuous oversimplification. The reality remains that its origins remain firmly tied to Yiddish and German, and to overlook this fact is to perpetuate ignorance and disrespect.

...

Let us not be fooled by your guise of cleverness, for the law stands vigilant, its watchful eye poised to uncover the seeds of hatred sown beneath the veil of your words. Like a puzzle unraveling, the truth shall emerge, revealing the venom concealed within your rhetoric.

So, if indeed you dare to persist in your attempts at subterfuge, be prepared to face the consequences of your actions. The courtroom shall be the stage where your charade meets its denouement, and there, before the judge, your veiled intentions wi




Sid, may I say something without incurring your wrath? I've used the word "klutz" before and I had NO IDEA of its origins and history. I agree with Fred that klutz has entered the mainstream as a word for "clumsy oaf".

I think it's a bit unreasonable to ask posters here to search the history of every word they use. And I don't think any court of law is going to convict anyone of any -ism based on the use of a single mainstream word, regardless of that word's history. Why resort to these tactics? It does make you seem extreme, even if you don't think it should be the case.


On a separate topic, Sid, regarding all your arguments about record-setting temps and how they compare to temps in previous centuries ....

As valid as your arguments may be, which I don't contest, there is something more important to consider.

It is population density.

I think the current population density of the world has reached such a level that these temp extremes (both cold and hot) are causing unprecedented damage. And that is what we have to consider.

Of great note, various insurance companies in North America are starting to withdraw from the market in some weather-sensitive regions. State Farm, Allstate, and most recently Travelers and Farmers. They are losing billions on the damages being done to infrastructure, homes, businesses, crops.

This is perhaps the most critical aspect of what is going on. Because once no one can get insurance, all losses are put squarely on the entity that WOULD HAVE had an insurance policy but is now without one. And once that happens, all economic activity in the affected regions is in peril. Basically all normal economic activity in these regions will SCREECH TO A HALT.

I believe this is the coming tsunami that will ensure that in fact we WILL SEE drastic and unprecedented climate-based regulations. We are in for some very very extreme changes in the North American economy. And it is likely the same in Europe, in Asia.

It all comes down to money, Sid. Not historical weather data. Money!

Because of population density combined with what is going on with the climate (whether man-caused or not), I believe unprecedented changes are in store. You will be against them, as might many of us myself included, but it is coming regardless Money talks louder than anything else.

I still hold to my belief that as this all unfolds, a second U.S. civil war might be unavoidable. Not sure about Canada.

Sid, may I say something without incurring your wrath? I've used the word "klutz" before and I had NO IDEA of its origins and history. I agree with Fred that klutz has entered the mainstream as a word for "clumsy oaf".

I think it's a bit unreasonable to ask posters here to search the history of every word they use.

It is not the use of the word Klutz I object to par see. and agree with your statement. The issue here is that he mocked my name, and the word he incorporated is a well-known Yiddish word; Could that be a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that three people on this forum who mock my name always seem to have strangw words laced with ethnic connotations? ie "Zhyd". https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ab2210.html


That being said, Fred's most recent commentary has outed who he is and what he is about, as I replied to in the previous post.

I think the current population density of the world has reached such a level that these temp extremes (both cold and hot) are causing unprecedented damage.

The death shots have significantly decreased birth rates worldwide (except in the few countries that rejected these shots), and stillborns have gone through the roof. This is nothing new, in Kenya in the late 90s and early 2000s, the WHO and its main benefactor, the Bill, and Melinda Gates Foundation, funded and distributed a so-called Tetanus Vaccine with the hidden objective of sterilizing women in that country.
A huge scandal erupted as women were not informed that they risked sterilization. But, I digress.

Your second statement implies something unusual about the weather patterns when that is provably false. However, I agree with you that this false assumption is leading to economically devastating regulations that very well could end in civil war.

[Fred Harvey]

That is as racist as it gets. Who are you to decide who is allowed to stay in Canada?

I was not clear! What I meant was that he is allowed to be unhinged in Canada....so much wheel-spinning and righteous indignation going on!

[Dilip Panjwani]

you're allowed to be in Canada. Otherwise I suggest you just f**k off...

That is as racist as it gets. Who are you to decide who is allowed to stay in Canada?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Good, excellent. I do understand variability, which was going to be next argument.
We can agree then that a single datapoint would be insufficient to form a conclusion, right?
How many days do you propose would be sufficient?

Or would it be better to look instead at it on a yearly basis?
Perhaps global average temperatures, compare year by year. What do you think?

You are right. The only point is: don't let CNN's obsession with 'broken day records' make you anxious...

[Bob Gillanders]

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!

Good, excellent. I do understand variability, which was going to be next argument.
We can agree then that a single datapoint would be insufficient to form a conclusion, right?
How many days do you propose would be sufficient?

Or would it be better to look instead at it on a yearly basis?
Perhaps global average temperatures, compare year by year. What do you think?

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Sid Belzberg
Your claim that searching with a Jewish word (I did not) somehow distorts the information is nothing short of provably absurd. Simply search google for the "origin of the word Klutz" https://www.google.com/search?q=the+...client=gws-wiz One cannot simply sweep away historical roots and etymology because they do not align with your own narrative. To dismiss such linguistic evidence as an attempt to promote racism is an insult to intelligence and reason.

Furthermore, to assert that "klutz" has miraculously shed its ethnic connections to become a "mainstream English word for clumsy" is a disingenuous oversimplification. The reality remains that its origins remain firmly tied to Yiddish and German, and to overlook this fact is to perpetuate ignorance and disrespect.

...

Let us not be fooled by your guise of cleverness, for the law stands vigilant, its watchful eye poised to uncover the seeds of hatred sown beneath the veil of your words. Like a puzzle unraveling, the truth shall emerge, revealing the venom concealed within your rhetoric.

So, if indeed you dare to persist in your attempts at subterfuge, be prepared to face the consequences of your actions. The courtroom shall be the stage where your charade meets its denouement, and there, before the judge, your veiled intentions will be laid bare.

Aha! Didn't we just all know that eventually our amateur internet lawyer would swoop! I was expecting this. I think you are totally unhinged, but you're allowed to be in Canada. Otherwise I suggest you just f**k off...

Sid, may I say something without incurring your wrath? I've used the word "klutz" before and I had NO IDEA of its origins and history. I agree with Fred that klutz has entered the mainstream as a word for "clumsy oaf".

I think it's a bit unreasonable to ask posters here to search the history of every word they use. And I don't think any court of law is going to convict anyone of any -ism based on the use of a single mainstream word, regardless of that word's history. Why resort to these tactics? It does make you seem extreme, even if you don't think it should be the case.


On a separate topic, Sid, regarding all your arguments about record-setting temps and how they compare to temps in previous centuries ....

As valid as your arguments may be, which I don't contest, there is something more important to consider.

It is population density.

I think the current population density of the world has reached such a level that these temp extremes (both cold and hot) are causing unprecedented damage. And that is what we have to consider.

Of great note, various insurance companies in North America are starting to withdraw from the market in some weather-sensitive regions. State Farm, Allstate, and most recently Travelers and Farmers. They are losing billions on the damages being done to infrastructure, homes, businesses, crops.

This is perhaps the most critical aspect of what is going on. Because once no one can get insurance, all losses are put squarely on the entity that WOULD HAVE had an insurance policy but is now without one. And once that happens, all economic activity in the affected regions is in peril. Basically all normal economic activity in these regions will SCREECH TO A HALT.

I believe this is the coming tsunami that will ensure that in fact we WILL SEE drastic and unprecedented climate-based regulations. We are in for some very very extreme changes in the North American economy. And it is likely the same in Europe, in Asia.

It all comes down to money, Sid. Not historical weather data. Money!

Because of population density combined with what is going on with the climate (whether man-caused or not), I believe unprecedented changes are in store. You will be against them, as might many of us myself included, but it is coming regardless Money talks louder than anything else.

I still hold to my belief that as this all unfolds, a second U.S. civil war might be unavoidable. Not sure about Canada.

[Sid Belzberg]

Aha! Didn't we just all know that eventually our amateur internet lawyer would swoop! I was expecting this. I think you are totally unhinged, but you're allowed to be in Canada. Otherwise I suggest you just f**k off...

You label me an "amateur internet lawyer" in a futile attempt to diminish the validity of my words, yet it is you who cling desperately to the fragile shroud of your false wit. Your disdain for truth and civility reveals the depths of your own unhinged nature, a state in which reason and decorum have been abandoned. While it may amuse you to castigate those who object to ad hominem attacks laced with ethnic connotations, you have yet to provide anything of substance to this conversation other than your astute observation that the weather is warmer in your estimation.

Your audacious invitation for me to "f**k off" is a stark reflection of your own limited intellect and lack of substantive retort. Please, by all means, do continue your ethnically charged ad hominem attacks.

But you're allowed to be in Canada

You, in your self-proclaimed magnanimity, bestow upon me the "allowance" to reside in my own native land, Canada. How generous indeed, to permit a citizen of this great nation to inhabit the very soil from which I sprang.

Yet, let me remind you that my right to be here is not a matter of your benevolence but a fundamental birthright enshrined in law. Your attempt to belittle my presence in my own homeland reeks of arrogance and entitlement, displaying a flagrant disregard for the principles of equality and justice.

Oh, how generous of you that a native-born Canadian citizen is "allowed to be in Canada'. I am sorry to disappoint you that the practice of ethnic cleansing violates international law. Thank you for clearly revealing what you are about. Let it be known that your despicable remarks will not go unchallenged.

[Fred Harvey]

In the realm of Canada, where the tendrils of law seek to curtail the promotion of animosity towards identifiable groups, I must remind you, my dear Fred et al, that your cunningly concealed invective will not find shelter amidst the cloak of deception. It is a delicate dance you weave, believing your words to be shrouded in subtle artifice, but beware, for such intricacies shall not escape the discerning gaze of justice.

Let us not be fooled by your guise of cleverness, for the law stands vigilant, its watchful eye poised to uncover the seeds of hatred sown beneath the veil of your words. Like a puzzle unraveling, the truth shall emerge, revealing the venom concealed within your rhetoric.

So, if indeed you dare to persist in your attempts at subterfuge, be prepared to face the consequences of your actions. The courtroom shall be the stage where your charade meets its denouement, and there, before the judge, your veiled intentions will be laid bare.

As the law guards against the seeds of hatred, it is not merely the judge who shall pass judgment, but the collective conscience of society that shall bear witness to your words. Let this serve as a warning—an admonition to cast aside such dark inclinations and embrace the path of empathy, respect, and understanding.

Yours sincerely, with a vigilant eye,

Sid Belzberg

Aha! Didn't we just all know that eventually our amateur internet lawyer would swoop! I was expecting this. I think you are totally unhinged, but you're allowed to be unhinged in Canada. Otherwise I suggest you just f**k off...

[Sid Belzberg]

Somehow I missed this editorial rebuff, but it is an excellent example of how folks can research the internet and come up with gibberish and conspiracies. Of course if you search with a Jewish word, you will come up with all the so-called support for racism. If, on the other hand, search with the word itself, you will find that the word "klutz" has now become a mainstream English word for clumsy. Not so complicated, unless you choose to wage false battles....

Ah, the plot thickens as you continue to dance around the truth, veiling your offensive remarks with flimsy arguments. It appears you have concocted an elaborate facade to absolve yourself of any wrongdoing, all while indulging in a dangerous game of semantics.

Allow me to disentangle the web of deception you have spun. Your attempt to discredit well-founded research by labeling it as "gibberish and conspiracies" is a desperate tactic to undermine the legitimacy of the information at hand. The facts speak for themselves, and it is clear that "klutz" indeed has origins in Yiddish and German, carrying ethnic connotations that cannot be disregarded.

Your claim that searching with a Jewish word (I did not) somehow distorts the information is nothing short of provably absurd. Simply search google for the "origin of the word Klutz" https://www.google.com/search?q=the+...client=gws-wiz One cannot simply sweep away historical roots and etymology because they do not align with your own narrative. To dismiss such linguistic evidence as an attempt to promote racism is an insult to intelligence and reason.

Furthermore, to assert that "klutz" has miraculously shed its ethnic connections to become a "mainstream English word for clumsy" is a disingenuous oversimplification. The reality remains that its origins remain firmly tied to Yiddish and German, and to overlook this fact is to perpetuate ignorance and disrespect.

The audacity to accuse me of waging false battles merely highlights your own ignorance and unwillingness to engage in an honest conversation. The battle is not false when it concerns the truth, respect, and empathy for others' backgrounds and identities.

I am not to be swayed by the hollow arguments of someone who seeks to evade accountability for their offensive remarks.

This is the third poster who thinks he is so clever with cloaking his antisemitic tomes with plausible deniability. In the last several years the lamentable parade of disingenuous posters persists, each parroting the same worn-out tactics, believing themselves to be masters of subtlety and wit. Alas, their attempts at "plausible deniability" are nothing but a display of intellectual bankruptcy and cowardice.

Behold, these pitiful souls, haphazardly stringing together fallacies and half-truths, as if they believe their deceptions to be the epitome of cunning. They errantly presume that by cloaking their true intent in veiled words, they might evade the repercussions of their offensive remarks.

Yet, they underestimate the discerning minds that bear witness to their charade. We are not so easily beguiled by their feeble efforts to obscure their true motives. The origins of words and the weight of their implications cannot be discarded at will, for the evidence stands tall, unyielding to their deceitful whims.

Their duplicitous games betray a profound lack of intellectual integrity, a stark testament to their paucity of character. To stoop so low as to wield ethnic connotations in the shadows, believing themselves to be the puppeteers of deceit, is to reveal the hollowness that lies within their own heart..

I shall not be swayed by their masquerade, nor shall I yield to their attempts to undermine the principles of empathy and respect. Their delusions of cleverness crumble beneath the weight of truth, and their "plausible deniability" withers in the face of righteous rebuke.

Let them be known for what they are—purveyors of darkness, clad in the robes of deception. Their words, like rotten fruit, betray the rot within their hearts. In the realm of genuine discourse, they shall find no sanctuary for their disingenuous machinations.


In the realm of Canada, where the tendrils of law seek to curtail the promotion of animosity towards identifiable groups, I must remind you, my dear Fred et al, that your cunningly concealed invective will not find shelter amidst the cloak of deception. It is a delicate dance you weave, believing your words to be shrouded in subtle artifice, but beware, for such intricacies shall not escape the discerning gaze of justice.

Let us not be fooled by your guise of cleverness, for the law stands vigilant, its watchful eye poised to uncover the seeds of hatred sown beneath the veil of your words. Like a puzzle unraveling, the truth shall emerge, revealing the venom concealed within your rhetoric.

So, if indeed you dare to persist in your attempts at subterfuge, be prepared to face the consequences of your actions. The courtroom shall be the stage where your charade meets its denouement, and there, before the judge, your veiled intentions will be laid bare.

As the law guards against the seeds of hatred, it is not merely the judge who shall pass judgment, but the collective conscience of society that shall bear witness to your words. Let this serve as a warning—an admonition to cast aside such dark inclinations and embrace the path of empathy, respect, and understanding.

Yours sincerely, with a vigilant eye,

Sid Belzberg

[Fred Harvey]

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

I'm not sure, but thanks for trying! I think your simple math would require that within an overall constant climate, specific events are quite random? But there are many influences on specific climate events that surely render them non-random. So I have trouble accepting simple math as useful in this situation.

And while I disagree with climate change deniers, based on my own observations, as opposed to faulty internet research, I do agree that our own contributions to the atmosphere are trivial in the overall picture. But I suppose every little bit helps......

[Fred Harvey]

Mocking someone based on their name, particularly when it carries cultural or ethnic connotations only highlights your ignorant insinuations aimed at my name, my heritage, and my faith revealing a profound ignorance that can only be matched by your own lamentable existence. I can only pity your pathetic attempts at wit, for they merely serve to highlight the vacuity of your own soul.

Somehow I missed this editorial rebuff, but it is an excellent example of how folks can research the internet and come up with gibberish and conspiracies. Of course if you search with a Jewish word, you will come up with all the so-called support for racism. If, on the other hand, search with the word itself, you will find that the word "klutz" has now become a mainstream English word for clumsy. Not so complicated, unless you choose to wage false battles....

[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")

---

[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.

[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!

[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)