BEFORE NASA climate was captured by radical environmentalists (Hansen/Schmidt et al) and sold their soul to the widely debunked “97% of scientists believe that CO2 is the climate control knob” groupthink virus, they knew perfectly well that the sun controlled Earth’s climate.
AND, before the new-NASA-activists rewrote climate ‘science’, the National Aeronautics Space Agency boldly (and correctly) noted that “Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system” such as “clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness [have] the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.”
FROM the above NASA article that disappeared around 2010 :
WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY FORCINGS OF THE EARTH SYSTEM?
The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.
Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.
However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.
Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or “aerosols”) would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.
Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth’s climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.
“HE who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell
ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made
global warming climate change”…
Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.
- How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
- 100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
- 100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate
expertsalarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?
Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.
These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…
The “97%” Hoax Related :
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
- IPCC Insider Says That The 97% Consensus Actually Consists Of “A Few Dozen” | Climatism
- 97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming | Climatism
- 97% Of Climate “Experts” Promised You The Arctic Would Be Ice-Free By 2014 | Climatism
- The Cook ‘97% consensus’ paper, exposed by new book for the fraud that it really is | Watts Up With That?
- Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims | Forbes
- Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | National Review
- TOP READ: The 99.99% pure climate consensus – how to ignore thousands of skeptical scientists « JoNova
“I always thought that there would be consequences for lying during Congressional testimony. I guess not. Mann got caught out in several blatant lies during the Hearing.”
Nuff said. Other than well done JC for your bravery in the face of smear and slander by peers when your only crime was sticking up for and valuing the “scientific method”. Which simply involves questioning and challenging the preferred wisdom of the day (i.e. “Manufactured consensus”) via data and observation.
But sadly, within the established field of climate ‘science’, questioning the preferred wisdom is taboo and heresy.
This is politics, not science.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
― Michael Crichton
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael Crichton
Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?
Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies
- A cooling consensus | CACA
- 100% Consensus In The Year 1900 | CACA
- US SENATE : 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims | CACA
- Global Warming Consensus Crumbling | CACA
- Richard Lindzen: Cool it on the climate | CACA
- The New Crisis : The Same As The Old Crisis | CACA
- 1976 CIA Shock News : Global Cooling To Kill Us All | CACA
- 1974 Shock News : CIA Said Global Warming Was A Good Thing | CACA
- 1976 : Every major climate organisation endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA
- Global Warming Theory ~ Circular reasoning at its best | CACA