Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria ~ By Michael Bastasch

But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.

Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”

“Such a result will also necessarily drive down estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” write Michaels and Knappenberger.

Being that I am not a scientist, I'm not sure that I understand everything discussed in this article, so I can not say with complete confidence that the global warming theories have been disproved. But what I can say with absolute conviction is that Global Warming doesn't appear to have the unanimity of everyone in the various fields of science, as the various academic and government authorities want us to believe.

Forgive me, then, for being a global warming denier or climate change skeptic. I always have been since the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) agitators first came on the scene. Or, maybe I should say, ever since everything changed and they went from fear mongering about global cooling to somehow transforming into global cooking. And when that didn't work, especially after the East Anglia Climate Research Unit fraud was revealed, it was reverted to Plan C: Climate Change. However, when Al Gore profited big-time off of the global warming thing known as carbon credits, and that cutting back on American industrialization efforts to limit carbon emissions was a Marxist ruse to transform America and set up a global government, that should eliminate ALL doubts of what a scam it is. Just sayin'...

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

Michael Bastasch

By Michael Bastasch

March 31, 2015 @ 10:07 PM

From DailyCaller.com

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend to reflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.

~~~ READ MORE on DailyCaller.com ~~~

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Former Obama Official: Climate Change Not 'Settled' Science ~ By Sandy Fitzgerald

In New York, tens of thousands participated in the demonstration demanding urgent steps against carbon emissions as the United Nation’s General Assembly opened.

"We often hear that there is a 'scientific consensus' about climate change," writes Koonin. "But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences."

Koonin says his extensive training as a computational physicist with a 40-year career of scientific research and management, has given him an up-close knowledge of climate science.

"Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate," writes Koonin.

Dr. Steven Koonin is not calling climate change a myth, but yet, he's not ready to say that mankind is totally responsible for climate change, nor that global warming is going to be catastrophic any time in our future. At any rate, what he is harping on in this column has much more to do about calling climate change a "settled science." He is very much right about that. There would never be any great new discoveries if everybody accepted everything we know on this planet as "settled science." When you read this column, please keep what he says in mind, especially the words in the following block quote:

"Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences...

"Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future."

How society has somehow accepted "settled science" as a description of ANY type of scientific information to be an intellectual concept is beyond me.  I can not regard any scientist, or university professor, or researcher, or President of the United States, that believes in a settled science with absolute certainty as being credible.  Dr. Koonin has it exactly right when saying that the future can not be accurately projected because of the uncertainty of  many variables, so how did so many people, who are supposedly smart, fall into this trap?  What is in it for them? And for that matter, what's in it for us, other than drastically increasing energy costs? All to quell our fears of a catastrophic climate change event that may not ever happen, would we be willing to give up our freedom and sovereignty? Just sayin'...


RELATED STORY:

• September 24, 2014 ~ VIDEO: The Eco-terrorists invade New York

*    *    *    *

Former Obama Official: Climate Change Not 'Settled' Science

By Sandy Fitzgerald

Sunday, 21 Sep 2014 06:11 PM

From NewsMax.com Newsfront

A former high-ranking Obama administration official says climate science and the implications of global warming are not "settled," insisting such claims are "misguided" and stifle debate on the matter.

Writing a Page One story in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review section, Dr. Steven Koonin argues that group think among experts has been inhibiting "the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future."

Koonin, who served at the Energy Department as President Obama’s undersecretary for science in the Energy Department, is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

Koonin’s position strikes a blow against climate change activists as People’s Climate March organized demonstrations at more than 2,000 locations worldwide.

~~~ READ MORE on NewsMax.com/Newsfront ~~~

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Climategate: The Truth Hurts When It Hits You in the Head

From American Thinker

By Dexter Wright January 18, 2010 The joke on the internet these days is "What do Tiger Woods and Phil Jones of East Anglia University in Britain have in common? They both got hit in the head by a model." In 2007, Professors David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and Fred Singer wrote a scientific paper in the International Journal of Climatology, which compared Global Climate Models (GCMs) with real observed data. GCMs were theoretically designed to forecast how greenhouse gases (GHGs) are warming the planet. There are certain rules that must be followed in scientific investigations in order to ensure that the results and conclusions are not erroneous. Basically, the process requires an investigator to operate under multiple hypotheses so that he is not blinded to facts that might contradict one of his hypotheses and leave him with a dead end. An investigator should start by working from the known to the unknown, from the simple to the complex, and always bend the theory to fit the facts -- not the other way around. This is exactly how the four scholars led by Professor Douglass conducted their investigation into the accuracy of the GCMs. The GCMs were touted by the now-discredited Dr. Jones as accurate predictions of how the planet is responding to GHGs, but no serious published work had been done to compare these GCMs with real observations to find out if the theoretical models agreed with the established facts. The results of these comparisons done by Prof. Douglass and his team were found to be significantly divergent. The paper states the following:

Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean.

In English, that says that the models could not be trusted. This news publicly enraged the gang led by Dr. Jones. They fired off more than 29 e-mails concerning this one paper. But the real story is that these findings did not surprise them. In one of the recently uncovered Climategate e-mails from Dr. Fred Pearce to Dr. Keith Briffa, dated the 13th of October, 1996, Dr. Pearce delivers the bad news that the data does not agree with the models. READ FULL STORY >